Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:57:56 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac15 |
| |
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > > > 2 4 2 77084 1524 18396 66904 0 1876 108 2220 2464 66079 198 1 > > > ^^^^^ > > > > Ok, I suspect that GFP_BUFFER allocations are fucking up here (they can't > > > > block on IO, so they loop insanely). > > > > > > Why doesn't the VM hang the syncing of queued IO on these guys via > > > wait_event or such instead of trying to just let the allocation fail? > ... > > > Does failing the allocation in fact accomplish more than what I'm > > > (uhoh:) assuming? > > > > No. > > hmm.. > > Jun 18 07:11:36 kernel: reclaim_page: salvaged ref:1 age:0 buf:0 cnt:1 > Jun 18 07:11:36 last message repeated 27 times > > One thing that _could_ be done about looping allocations is to steal > a page from the clean list ignoring PageReferenced (if you have any). > That would be a very expensive 'rob Peter to pay Paul' trade though.
Don't like it.
This goes against the aging logic.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |