DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=cK4DM3cIzguSFfnzlanAOGgW8oUhqABXF0To4Yjzhna/vkyJpYgptxR4sjBiODHMT+
         NmjxcbVXU+YlwXwp24XMwjEnbgrG1OJ5hFcjvqUMv98/WWrSUA1Dbq2B0+exfry2+I9w
         A046C4lB7sStF2nW7pO6NN1nZ5Jxd8s2yiB4k=
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:07:21 +0100
From: Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@gmail.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>,
       Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
       Sven Geggus <lists@fuchsschwanzdomain.de>,
       Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@gmail.com>,
       Tobias Oetiker <tobi@oetiker.ch>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
       Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>,
       "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
       Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate
	fix V3
Message-ID: <20091115120721.GA7557@bizet.domek.prywatny>
References: <1258054235-3208-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1258054235-3208-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1607
Lines: 40

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:30:30PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:

> [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100

> Patches 1-3 should be tested first. The testing I've done shows that the
> page allocator and behaviour of congestion_wait() is more in line with
> 2.6.30 than the vanilla kernels.
> 
> It'd be nice to have 2 more tests, applying each patch on top noting any
> behaviour change. i.e. ideally there would be results for
> 
>  o patches 1+2+3
>  o patches 1+2+3+4
>  o patches 1+2+3+4+5
> 
> Of course, any tests results are welcome. The rest of the mail is the
> results of my own tests.

I've tried testing 3+4+5 against 2.6.32-rc7 (1+2 seem to be in
mainline) and got failure.  I've noticed something strange (I think).
I was unable to trigger failures when system was under heavy memory
pressure (i.e. my testing - gitk, firefoxes, etc.).  When I killed
almost all memory hogs, put system into sleep and resumed -- it
failed.  free(1) showed:

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        255240     194052      61188          0       4040      49364
-/+ buffers/cache:     140648     114592
Swap:       514040      72712     441328


Is that ok?  Wild guess -- maybe kswapd doesn't take fragmentation (or
other factors) into account as hard as it used to in 2.6.30?

Thanks.
--
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/