From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com (mail-ve0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C226B0035 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:04:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id oz11so1257577veb.21 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 06:04:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org. [2402:b800:7003:1:1::1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t2si1120879qat.147.2014.01.08.06.04.18 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jan 2014 06:04:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 01:03:58 +1100 From: Anton Blanchard Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: Don't throw away partial remote slabs if there is no local memory Message-ID: <20140109010358.0f9b30c4@kryten> In-Reply-To: <871u0k5lri.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <20140107132100.5b5ad198@kryten> <871u0k5lri.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andi Kleen Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, penberg@kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com, nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Hi Andi, > > Thoughts? It seems like we could hit a similar situation if a > > machine is balanced but we run out of memory on a single node. > > Yes I agree, but your patch doesn't seem to attempt to handle this? It doesn't. I was hoping someone with more mm knowledge than I could suggest a lightweight way of doing this. Anton -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org