linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate fix V3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091113133740.GD29804@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:37:41 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
	Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate
	fix V3

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 01:47:35PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Hi Mel,
> 
> Yesterday Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > Sorry for the long delay in posting another version. Testing is extremely
> > time-consuming and I wasn't getting to work on this as much as I'd have liked.
> >
> > Changelog since V2
> >   o Dropped the kswapd-quickly-notice-high-order patch. In more detailed
> >     testing, it made latencies even worse as kswapd slept more on high-order
> >     congestion causing order-0 direct reclaims.
> >   o Added changes to how congestion_wait() works
> >   o Added a number of new patches altering the behaviour of reclaim
> 
> so is there anything promissing for the order 5 allocation problems
> in this set?
> 

Yes. While the change in timing of direct reclaimers might be less
important when dm-crypt is not involved, kswapd is more pro-active about
maintaining the watermarks.

-- 
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/