From: "Baxter, Jim" <jim_bax...@mentor.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:45:42 +0100
> From: David S. Miller (da...@davemloft.net) > Sent: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:18:19 -0400 > >> >> When there isn't memory pressure this will hurt performance of >> course. >> >> It is a quite common paradigm to back down to 0 order memory requests >> when higher order ones fail, so this isn't such a bad change from the >> perspective. >> >> However, one negative about it is that when the system is under memory >> stress it doesn't help at all to keep attemping high order allocations >> when the system hasn't recovered yet. In fact, this can make it >> worse. >> > > Do you think the patch should be modified to extend the length of time > the 0 order memory requests with a time period of 1 minute for example? > > Or do you feel the patch is not the correct way this should be performed? Unfortunately without a real notifier of some sort (there isn't one, and it isn't actually easy to come up with a clean way to do this which is probably why it doesn't exist yet in the first place) I really cannot recommend anything better. That being said, probably for the time being we should just backoff each and every request, always trying initially to do the higher order thing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
