Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752087AbZKPJw5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:52:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751445AbZKPJw4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:52:56 -0500 Received: from gir.skynet.ie ([193.1.99.77]:60222 "EHLO gir.skynet.ie" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750761AbZKPJw4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:52:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:52:58 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Karol Lewandowski Cc: Andrew Morton , Frans Pop , Jiri Kosina , Sven Geggus , Tobias Oetiker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , KOSAKI Motohiro , Pekka Enberg , Rik van Riel , Christoph Lameter , Stephan von Krawczynski , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kernel Testers List Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate fix V3 Message-ID: <20091116095258.GS29804@csn.ul.ie> References: <1258054235-3208-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20091115120721.GA7557@bizet.domek.prywatny> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091115120721.GA7557@bizet.domek.prywatny> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2008 Lines: 48 On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 01:07:21PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > 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? > That's a lot of memory free. I take it the order-5 GFP_ATOMIC allocation failed. What was the dmesg for it please? -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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/