Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:43:05 -0600 (CST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: Memory management woes - order 1 allocation failures |
| |
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 26 February 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > Isn't it a bit strange that cache claims so much memory that real > > > processes get into allocation failures? > > > > All of the failed allocations seem to be GFP_ATOMIC so it's not _that_ > > strange. > > It's still very ugly though. And I would say it should be unnecessary. > > > Dunno if anything changed recently. What's the last known good kernel for > > you? > > I've not used that box very intensively in the past, but I first saw the > allocation failure with aptitude with either .31 or .32. I would be > extremely surprised if I could reproduce the problem with .30. > And I have done large rsyncs to the box without any problems in the past, > but that must have been with .24 or so kernels. > > It seems likely to me that it's related to all the other swap and > allocation issues we've been seeing after .30.
Hmmm.. How long is the allocation that fails? SLUB can always fall back to order 0 allocs if the object is < PAGE_SIZE. SLAB cannot do so if it has decided to use a higher order slab cache for a kmalloc cache.
| |