[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPv3WKfEQCeR++uqaUVhhsNe0WFsKq1Sn9uo==9NxtQe=GV7zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 19:36:57 +0200
From: Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Yehuda Yitschak <yehuday@...vell.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@...ihalf.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
Gregory Clément
<gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Page allocation failures with newest kernels
Hi Mel,
2016-06-03 14:36 GMT+02:00 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:57:06PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
>> >> For the record: the newest kernel I was able to reproduce the dumps
>> >> was v4.6: http://pastebin.com/ekDdACn5. I've just checked v4.7-rc1,
>> >> which comprise a lot (mainly yours) changes in mm, and I'm wondering
>> >> if there may be a spot fix or rather a series of improvements. I'm
>> >> looking forward to your opinion and would be grateful for any advice.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't believe we want to reintroduce the reserve to cope with CMA. One
>> > option would be to widen the gap between low and min watermark by the
>> > size of the CMA region. The effect would be to wake kswapd earlier which
>> > matters considering the context of the failing allocation was
>> > GFP_ATOMIC.
>>
>> Of course my intention is not reintroducing anything that's gone
>> forever, but just to find out way to overcome current issues. Do you
>> mean increasing CMA size?
>
> No. There is a gap between the low and min watermarks. At the low point,
> kswapd is woken up and at the min point allocation requests either
> either direct reclaim or fail if they are atomic. What I'm suggesting
> is that you adjust the low watermark and add the size of the CMA area
> to it so that kswapd is woken earlier. The watermarks are calculated in
> __setup_per_zone_wmarks
>
I printed all zones' settings, whose watermarks are configured within
__setup_per_zone_wmarks(). There are three DMA, Normal and Movable -
only first one's watermarks have non-zero values. Increasing DMA min
watermark didn't help. I also played with increasing
/proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes from ~2560 to 16000
(__setup_per_zone_wmarks() recalculates watermarks after that) - no
effect either.
Best regards,
Marcin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists