[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160608100950.GH2527@techsingularity.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:09:51 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>
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
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 07:36:57PM +0200, Marcin Wojtas wrote:
> 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
Patch?
Did you establish why GFP_ATOMIC (assuming that's the failing site) had
not specified __GFP_ATOMIC at the time of the allocation failure?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists