[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ec2d7290910240646p75b93c68v6ea1648d628a9660@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:46:56 +0100
From: Mel LKML <mel.lkml@...il.com>
To: Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@....fi>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mohamed Abbas <mohamed.abbas@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC
failures V2
Hi,
This is the same Mel as mel@....ul.ie. The mail server the address is
on has no power until Tuesday so I'm not going to be very unresponsive
until then. Monday is also a public holiday here and apparently they
are upgrading the power transformers near the building.
On 10/23/09, Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:58:10PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:22:31PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> > Test 3: If you are getting allocation failures, try with the following
>> > patch
>> >
>> > 3/5 vmscan: Force kswapd to take notice faster when high-order
>> > watermarks are being hit
>
>> No, problem doesn't go away with these patches (1+2+3). However, from
>> my testing this particular patch makes it way, way harder to trigger
>> allocation failures (but these are still present).
>>
>> This bothers me - should I test following patches with or without
>> above patch? This patch makes bug harder to find, IMVHO it doesn't
>> fix the real problem.
> ..
>
>> Test 4: If you are still getting failures, apply the following
>> 4/5 page allocator: Pre-emptively wake kswapd when high-order watermarks
>> are hit
>
> Ok, I've tested patches 1+2+4 and bug, while very hard to trigger, is
> still present. I'll test complete 1-4 patchset as time permits.
>
And also patch 5 please which is the revert. Patch 5 as pointed out is
probably a red herring. Hwoever, it has changed the timing and made a
difference for some testing so I'd like to know if it helps yours as
well.
As things stand, it looks like patches 1+2 should certainly go ahead.
I need to give more thought on patches 3 and 4 as to why they help
Tobias but not anyone elses testing.
Thanks
--
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