Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756776Ab1EFThx (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2011 15:37:53 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55130 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752463Ab1EFThv (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2011 15:37:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 20:37:48 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: James Bottomley Cc: Mel Gorman , Jan Kara , colin.king@canonical.com, Chris Mason , linux-fsdevel , linux-mm , linux-kernel , linux-ext4 Subject: Re: [BUG] fatal hang untarring 90GB file, possibly writeback related. Message-ID: <20110506193748.GJ6657@novell.com> References: <20110428192104.GA4658@suse.de> <1304020767.2598.21.camel@mulgrave.site> <1304025145.2598.24.camel@mulgrave.site> <1304030629.2598.42.camel@mulgrave.site> <20110503091320.GA4542@novell.com> <1304431982.2576.5.camel@mulgrave.site> <1304432553.2576.10.camel@mulgrave.site> <20110506074224.GB6591@suse.de> <20110506154444.GG6591@suse.de> <1304709277.12427.29.camel@mulgrave.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1304709277.12427.29.camel@mulgrave.site> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1717 Lines: 37 On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 02:14:37PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 16:44 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Colin and James: Did you happen to switch from SLAB to SLUB between > > 2.6.37 and 2.6.38? My own tests were against SLAB which might be why I > > didn't see the problem. Am restarting the tests with SLUB. > > Aargh ... I'm an idiot. I should have thought of SLUB immediately ... > it's been causing oopses since debian switched to it. > > So I recompiled the 2.6.38.4 stable kernel with SLAB instead of SLUB and > the problem goes away ... at least from three untar runs on a loaded > box ... of course it could manifest a few ms after I send this email ... > > There are material differences, as well: SLAB isn't taking my system > down to very low memory on the untar ... it's keeping about 0.5Gb listed > as free. SLUB took that to under 100kb, so it could just be that SLAB > isn't wandering as close to the cliff edge? > A comparison of watch-highorder.pl with SLAB and SLUB may be enlightening as well as testing SLUB altering allocate_slab() to read alloc_gfp = (flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NO_KSWAPD) & ~__GFP_NOFAIL; i.e. try adding the __GFP_NO_KSWAPD. My own tests are still in progress but I'm still not seeing the problem. I'm installing Fedora on another test machine at the moment to see if X and other applications have to be running to pressure high-order allocations properly. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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/