[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091021212034.GB2987@bizet.domek.prywatny>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:20:34 +0200
From: Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Mohamed Abbas <mohamed.abbas@...el.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLUB: Don't drop __GFP_NOFAIL completely from
allocate_slab() (was: Re: [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation
failure. order:5,ode:0x8020 w/ e100)
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 02:06:41PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
>
> > commit d6849591e042bceb66f1b4513a1df6740d2ad762
> > Author: Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>
> > Date: Wed Oct 21 21:01:20 2009 +0200
> >
> > SLUB: Don't drop __GFP_NOFAIL completely from allocate_slab()
> >
> > Commit ba52270d18fb17ce2cf176b35419dab1e43fe4a3 unconditionally
> > cleared __GFP_NOFAIL flag on all allocations.
> >
>
> No, it clears __GFP_NOFAIL from the first allocation of oo_order(s->oo).
> If that fails (and it's easy to fail, it has __GFP_NORETRY), another
> allocation is attempted with oo_order(s->min), for which __GFP_NOFAIL
> would be preserved if that's the slab cache's allocflags.
Right, patch is junk.
However, I haven't been able to trigger failures since I've switched
to SLAB allocator. That patch seemed related (and wrong), but it
wasn't.
> > */
> > - page = alloc_slab_page(flags, node, oo);
> > + page = alloc_slab_page(flags | nofail, node, oo);
> > if (!page)
> > return NULL;
> >
> >
>
> This does nothing. You may have missed that the lower order allocation is
> passing 'flags' (which is a union of the gfp flags passed to
> allocate_slab() based on the allocation context and the cache's
> allocflags), and not alloc_gfp where __GFP_NOFAIL is masked.
Right, I missed that.
> Nack.
>
> Note: slub isn't going to be a culprit in order 5 allocation failures
> since they have kmalloc passthrough to the page allocator.
However, it might change fragmentation somewhat I guess. This might
make problem more/less visible.
--
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