Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 10:13 am

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Stan Hoeppner wrote:


SLUB has a smaller memory footprint so you may come out ahead for
such a small system in particular.


The system does not guarantee that GFP_ATOMIC allocation succeed so any
caller must provide logic to fall back if no memory is allocated. So the
effect may just be that certain OS operations have to be retried.


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Mikael Abrahamsson, (Sat Aug 21, 11:47 pm)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Pekka Enberg, (Sun Aug 22, 12:51 pm)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Christoph Lameter, (Sun Aug 22, 3:40 pm)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Pekka Enberg, (Mon Aug 23, 2:37 am)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Stan Hoeppner, (Mon Aug 23, 3:35 pm)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Aug 24, 10:13 am)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Pekka Enberg, (Tue Aug 24, 11:03 am)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Stan Hoeppner, (Tue Aug 24, 12:08 pm)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Mikael Abrahamsson, (Tue Aug 24, 12:21 pm)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Pekka Enberg, (Sun Aug 29, 3:49 am)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Mikael Abrahamsson, (Sun Aug 29, 5:38 am)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Pekka Enberg, (Sun Aug 29, 6:17 am)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Mikael Abrahamsson, (Sun Aug 29, 8:37 am)
Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure, Mikael Abrahamsson, (Tue Aug 31, 1:28 pm)