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]

Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:52:58 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
	Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>, 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 Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 01:07:21PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:30:30PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> 
> > Patches 1-3 should be tested first. The testing I've done shows that the
> > page allocator and behaviour of congestion_wait() is more in line with
> > 2.6.30 than the vanilla kernels.
> > 
> > It'd be nice to have 2 more tests, applying each patch on top noting any
> > behaviour change. i.e. ideally there would be results for
> > 
> >  o patches 1+2+3
> >  o patches 1+2+3+4
> >  o patches 1+2+3+4+5
> > 
> > Of course, any tests results are welcome. The rest of the mail is the
> > results of my own tests.
> 
> I've tried testing 3+4+5 against 2.6.32-rc7 (1+2 seem to be in
> mainline) and got failure.  I've noticed something strange (I think).
> I was unable to trigger failures when system was under heavy memory
> pressure (i.e. my testing - gitk, firefoxes, etc.).  When I killed
> almost all memory hogs, put system into sleep and resumed -- it
> failed.  free(1) showed:
> 
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
> Mem:        255240     194052      61188          0       4040      49364
> -/+ buffers/cache:     140648     114592
> Swap:       514040      72712     441328
> 
> 
> Is that ok?  Wild guess -- maybe kswapd doesn't take fragmentation (or
> other factors) into account as hard as it used to in 2.6.30?
> 

That's a lot of memory free. I take it the order-5 GFP_ATOMIC allocation
failed. What was the dmesg for it please?

-- 
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/