Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932076AbZJFJPm (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 05:15:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756724AbZJFJPm (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 05:15:42 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:14404 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756719AbZJFJPl (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 05:15:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=i4/RTHa1+UvvuxR02pIFPjYLkUqe2vOQ9rWqFMWU+rIiCspkkYzcPzHLTa0hOVoKL 1XtR6nbNB3f3FKR6cwupQ== Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 02:14:26 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Mel Gorman cc: Frans Pop , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Pekka Enberg , Reinette Chatre , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Karol Lewandowski , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures in iwlagn In-Reply-To: <20091006085345.GA18185@csn.ul.ie> Message-ID: References: <3onW63eFtRF.A.xXH.oMTxKB@chimera> <200910050851.02056.elendil@planet.nl> <20091005085739.GB5452@csn.ul.ie> <200910052334.23833.elendil@planet.nl> <20091006085345.GA18185@csn.ul.ie> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2032 Lines: 48 On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > And the winner is: > > > 2ff05b2b4eac2e63d345fc731ea151a060247f53 is first bad commit > > > commit 2ff05b2b4eac2e63d345fc731ea151a060247f53 > > > Author: David Rientjes > > > Date: Tue Jun 16 15:32:56 2009 -0700 > > > > > > oom: move oom_adj value from task_struct to mm_struct > > > > > > I'm confident that the bisection is good. The test case was very reliable > > > while zooming in on the merge from akpm. > > > > > > > I doubt it for two reasons: (i) this commit was reverted in 0753ba0 since > > 2.6.31-rc7 and is no longer in the kernel, and (ii) these are GFP_ATOMIC > > allocations which would be unaffected by oom killer scores. > > > > However, the problem was reported to start showing up in 2.6.31-rc1 so > while it might not be *the* patch, it might be making the type of change > that caused more fragmentation. This patch adjusted the size of > mm_struct and maybe it was enough to change the "order" required for the > slab. Maybe there are other slabs that have changed size as well in that > timeframe. > > Frans, what is the size of mm_struct before and after this patch was > applied? Find it with either > > grep mm_struct /proc/slabinfo > > and if the information is not available there, try > > cat /sys/kernel/slab/mm_struct/slab_size and > /sys/kernel/slab/mm_struct/order > If that's the case and the problem still persists in 2.6.31-rc7 as reported, then you'd need to compare the current slab order for both mm_struct and signal_struct to the previously known working kernel since the latter is where oom_adj was moved. (You'd still have to check the former to see if there were any mm_struct additions between rc1 and rc7 between the commit and revert, though.) -- 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/