[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091027153600.GK8900@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:36:00 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>
Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
"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
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:37:36PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Hi Mel,
>
> I have no done additional tests ... and can report the following
>
> Thursday Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > 1/5 page allocator: Always wake kswapd when restarting an allocation attempt after direct reclaim failed
> > 2/5 page allocator: Do not allow interrupts to use ALLOC_HARDER
> >
> >
> > These patches correct problems introduced by me during the 2.6.31-rc1
> > merge window. The patches were not meant to introduce any functional
> > changes but two were missed.
> >
> > If your problem goes away with just these two patches applied,
> > please tell me.
>
> 1+2 do not help
>
> > 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
> >
> > This is a functional change that causes kswapd to notice sooner
> > when high-order watermarks have been hit. There have been a number
> > of changes in page reclaim since 2.6.30 that might have delayed
> > when kswapd kicks in for higher orders
> >
> > If your problem goes away with these three patches applied, please
> > tell me
>
> 1+2+3 do not help either
>
> > 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
> >
> > This patch is very heavy handed and pre-emptively kicks kswapd when
> > watermarks are hit. It should only be necessary if there has been
> > significant changes in the timing and density of page allocations
> > from an unknown source. Tobias, this patch is largely aimed at you.
> > You reported that with patches 3+4 applied that your problems went
> > away. I need to know if patch 3 on its own is enough or if both
> > are required
> >
> > If your problem goes away with these four patches applied, please
> > tell me
>
> 3 allone does not help
> 3+4 does ...
>
This is a bit surprising.....
Tell me, do you have an Intel IO-MMU on your system by any chance? It should
be mentioned in either dmesg or lspci -v (please send the full output of
both). If you do have one of these things, I notice they abuse PF_MEMALLOC
which would explain why this patch makes a difference to your testing.
Thanks
--
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