lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC failures V2
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:37:36PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Hi Mel,
>
> I have no done additional tests ... and can report the following
>
> Thursday Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > 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 patches correct problems introduced by me during the 2.6.31-rc1
> > merge window. The patches were not meant to introduce any functional
> > changes but two were missed.
> >
> > If your problem goes away with just these two patches applied,
> > please tell me.
>
> 1+2 do not help
>
> > 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
> >
> > This is a functional change that causes kswapd to notice sooner
> > when high-order watermarks have been hit. There have been a number
> > of changes in page reclaim since 2.6.30 that might have delayed
> > when kswapd kicks in for higher orders
> >
> > If your problem goes away with these three patches applied, please
> > tell me
>
> 1+2+3 do not help either
>
> > 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
> >
> > This patch is very heavy handed and pre-emptively kicks kswapd when
> > watermarks are hit. It should only be necessary if there has been
> > significant changes in the timing and density of page allocations
> > from an unknown source. Tobias, this patch is largely aimed at you.
> > You reported that with patches 3+4 applied that your problems went
> > away. I need to know if patch 3 on its own is enough or if both
> > are required
> >
> > If your problem goes away with these four patches applied, please
> > tell me
>
> 3 allone does not help
> 3+4 does ...
>

This is a bit surprising.....

Tell me, do you have an Intel IO-MMU on your system by any chance? It should
be mentioned in either dmesg or lspci -v (please send the full output of
both). If you do have one of these things, I notice they abuse PF_MEMALLOC
which would explain why this patch makes a difference to your testing.

Thanks

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-27 16:39    [W:0.231 / U:2.404 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site