[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091016223237.GE32397@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:32:37 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
reinette chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@....fi>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] page allocator: Direct reclaim should always obey
watermarks
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:07:07PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS should be cleared when trying to allocate from the
> > free-lists after a direct reclaim. If it's not, __GFP_NOFAIL allocations
> > from a process that is exiting can ignore watermarks. __GFP_NOFAIL is not
> > often used but the journal layer is one of those places. This is suspected of
> > causing an increase in the number of GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures reported.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> > ---
> > mm/page_alloc.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index dfa4362..a3e5fed 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1860,7 +1860,8 @@ rebalance:
> > page = __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(gfp_mask, order,
> > zonelist, high_zoneidx,
> > nodemask,
> > - alloc_flags, preferred_zone,
> > + alloc_flags & ~ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS,
> > + preferred_zone,
> > migratetype, &did_some_progress);
> > if (page)
> > goto got_pg;
>
> I don't get it. __alloc_pages_high_priority() will already loop
> indefinitely if ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS is set and its a __GFP_NOFAIL
> allocation. How do we even reach this code in such a condition?
>
Frans, you reported that both patches in combination reduced the number
of failures. Was it in fact just the kswapd change that made the
difference?
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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