[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC failures V2

This is the same Mel as The mail server the address is
on has no power until Tuesday so I'm not going to be very unresponsive
until then. Monday is also a public holiday here and apparently they
are upgrading the power transformers near the building.

On 10/23/09, Karol Lewandowski <> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:58:10PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:22:31PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> > Test 3: If you are getting allocation failures, try with the following
>> > patch
>> >
>> > 3/5 vmscan: Force kswapd to take notice faster when high-order
>> > watermarks are being hit
>> No, problem doesn't go away with these patches (1+2+3). However, from
>> my testing this particular patch makes it way, way harder to trigger
>> allocation failures (but these are still present).
>> This bothers me - should I test following patches with or without
>> above patch? This patch makes bug harder to find, IMVHO it doesn't
>> fix the real problem.
> ..
>> Test 4: If you are still getting failures, apply the following
>> 4/5 page allocator: Pre-emptively wake kswapd when high-order watermarks
>> are hit
> Ok, I've tested patches 1+2+4 and bug, while very hard to trigger, is
> still present. I'll test complete 1-4 patchset as time permits.

And also patch 5 please which is the revert. Patch 5 as pointed out is
probably a red herring. Hwoever, it has changed the timing and made a
difference for some testing so I'd like to know if it helps yours as

As things stand, it looks like patches 1+2 should certainly go ahead.
I need to give more thought on patches 3 and 4 as to why they help
Tobias but not anyone elses testing.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-24 15:49    [W:0.080 / U:34.104 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site