Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: Memory Problem in 2.4.10-pre2 / __alloc_pages failed | Date | Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:03:22 +0200 |
| |
On August 31, 2001 01:06 pm, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:36:10 +0200 > Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net> wrote: > > > [...] > > Let's try another way of dealing with it. What I'm trying to do with the > > patch below is leave a small reserve of 1/12 of pages->min, above the > > emergency reserve, to be consumed by non-PF_MEMALLOC atomic allocators. > > Please bear in mind this is completely untested, but would you try it > > please and see if the failure frequency goes down? > > > > --- ../2.4.9.clean/mm/page_alloc.c Thu Aug 16 12:43:02 2001 > > +++ ./mm/page_alloc.c Wed Aug 29 23:47:39 2001 > > @@ -493,6 +493,9 @@ > > } > > > > /* XXX: is pages_min/4 a good amount to reserve for this? */ > > + if (z->free_pages < z->pages_min / 3 && (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) && > > + !(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)) > > + continue; > > if (z->free_pages < z->pages_min / 4 && > > !(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)) > > continue; > > > > Hello Daniel, > > I tried this patch and it makes _no_ difference. Failures show up in same > situation and amount. Do you need traces? They look the same
OK, first would you confirm that the frequency of 0 order failures has stayed the same?
If some other thread is always in PF_MEMALLOC when these failures are happening then no, this approach would not be any help.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |