xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: %u-order allocation failed

To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: %u-order allocation failed
From: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 16:01:05 +0100
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Krzysztof Rusocki <kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <m1wv27wber.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>
References: <m1wv27wber.fsf@frodo.biederman.org>
Reply-to: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx


--On Sunday, October 07, 2001 12:30 PM -0600 "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Note also that something (not sure what) has made fragmentation
increasingly prevalent over the years since the buddy allocator
was originally put in.

Actually it seems to be situations like the stack now being two pages

Instrumentation posted here before appears to corellate fragmentation being /caused/ with I/O activity (single bonnie process and thus a single 8k stack frame). My own guess is that it is due to a different persistence of various caches.

I haven't seen anyone before blaming stack frame allocation
as a /cause/ of fragmenation - I've heard people say they
notice fragmentation more as stack frame allocs start to
fail - but that's a symptom.

--
Alex Bligh


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>