[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080522225949.GE31727@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 00:59:49 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@...tron.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
andi-suse@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ?
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 09:58:11PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 09:49:27AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > probably andi has a better idea on why it was added, since it used to
> > > live in his tree?
> >
> > d_a_c() tries a couple of zones, and running the oom killer for each
> > is inconvenient. Especially for the 16MB DMA zone which is unlikely
> > to be cleared by the OOM killer anyways because normal user applications
> > don't put pages in there. There was a real report with some problems
> > in this area.
>
> Can you give some pointers please ?
To the bug report? Memory is fuzzy, but I think it was some SUSE bugzilla
report, might have been for SLES.
Anyways the reasoning is still valid. Longer term the mask allocator
would be the right fix, shorter term a new GFP flag as proposed
sounds reasonable.
The trick is just that you need different __GFP_ flags for the different
allocations. e.g. the first the "higher zone" quick try should
continue to use __GFP_NORETRY. And the 16MB one should too. It would
only make sense for the main request.
In the mask allocator patchkit kernel it should be also ok already.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists