From: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
> On Thu, 10 May 2007, David Miller wrote: > > > What SLAB allows you to do is define LARGE_ALLOCS but not necessarily > > set MAX_ORDER large enough for the largest kmalloc SLAB. SLAB would > > ignore the kmalloc cache creation failures for these largest ones that > > are over MAX_ORDER. > > Hmmm... How about limiting KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH to max order? That should definitely do the trick too: Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I just confirmed that I don't actually need LARGE_ALLOCS on sparc64. I think I needed them for some reason back when I used kmalloc() to allocate the per-address-space TLB miss hash tables. I think the issue was that for Niagara and later really huge TLB hash table sizes are allowed, and I wanted to experiment with those and the sizes were large enough to require LARGE_ALLOCS. But now I use SLAB for this and I cap the size at the pre-Niagara limit of 1MB because larger sizes showed no performance gains. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
