From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:11:44 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Page allocator: Single Zone optimizations Message-Id: <20061102141144.c7e9a931.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <454A6B32.6020502@shadowen.org> References: <20061027190452.6ff86cae.akpm@osdl.org> <20061027192429.42bb4be4.akpm@osdl.org> <20061027214324.4f80e992.akpm@osdl.org> <20061028180402.7c3e6ad8.akpm@osdl.org> <4544914F.3000502@yahoo.com.au> <20061101182605.GC27386@skynet.ie> <20061101123451.3fd6cfa4.akpm@osdl.org> <20061102105212.9bf4579b.akpm@osdl.org> <454A6B32.6020502@shadowen.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andy Whitcroft Cc: Mel Gorman , Nick Piggin , Christoph Lameter , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:03:30 +0000 Andy Whitcroft wrote: > >> On it's own lumpy-reclaim or linear-reclaim were not enough to get > >> MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES blocks of contiguous pages and these were of interest > >> for huge pages although not necessarily of much use to memory hot-unplug. > > > > I'm interested in lumpy-reclaim as a simple solution to the > > e1000-cant-allocate-an-order-2-page problem, rather than for hugepages. > > > > ie: a bugfix, not a feature.. > > > Is there a description of the problem and particularly of the > allocation patterns here. I guess we see maybe a couple of reports a month. The driver tries to allocate an order-2 patch from atomic context and there aren't any so a warning gets spat out and people complain. The usual "fix" is to increase min_free_kbytes. Try executing google(e1000 min_free_kbytes); -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org