[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091022160310.GS11778@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:03:10 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>,
"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>,
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>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC
failures V2
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:47:10PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> > Test 1: Verify your problem occurs on 2.6.32-rc5 if you can
> >
> > Test 2: Apply the following two patches and test again
> >
> > 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 are pretty obvious bug fixes and should go to linux-next ASAP IMHO.
>
Agreed, but I wanted to pin down where exactly we stand with this
problem before sending patches any direction for merging.
> > Test 5: If things are still screwed, apply the following
> > 5/5 Revert 373c0a7e, 8aa7e847: Fix congestion_wait() sync/async vs read/write confusion
> >
> > Frans Pop reports that the bulk of his problems go away when this
> > patch is reverted on 2.6.31. There has been some confusion on why
> > exactly this patch was wrong but apparently the conversion was not
> > complete and further work was required. It's unknown if all the
> > necessary work exists in 2.6.31-rc5 or not. If there are still
> > allocation failures and applying this patch fixes the problem,
> > there are still snags that need to be ironed out.
>
> As explained by Jens Axboe, this changes timing but is not the source
> of the OOMs so the revert is bogus even if it "helps" on some
> workloads. IIRC the person who reported the revert to help things did
> report that the OOMs did not go away, they were simply harder to
> trigger with the revert.
>
IIRC, there were mixed reports as to how much the revert helped. I'm hoping
that patches 1+2 cover the bases hence why I asked them to be tested on
their own. Patch 2 in particular might be responsible for watermarks being
impacted enough to cause timing problems. I left reverting with patch 5 as
a standalone test to see how much of a factor the timing changes introduced
are if there are still allocation problems.
--
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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists