From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80B956B004F for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:33:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Frans Pop Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures in iwlagn Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:33:26 +0200 References: <3onW63eFtRF.A.xXH.oMTxKB@chimera> <20091014165051.GE5027@csn.ul.ie> <1255552911.21134.51.camel@rc-desk> In-Reply-To: <1255552911.21134.51.camel@rc-desk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200910142333.29625.elendil@planet.nl> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: reinette chatre Cc: Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Pekka Enberg , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Karol Lewandowski , "Abbas, Mohamed" , "John W. Linville" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Wednesday 14 October 2009, reinette chatre wrote: > We do queue the GFP_KERNEL allocations when there are only a few buffers > remaining in the queue (8 right now) ... Are you sure of this? I have zero messages in my logs about allocation failures with GFP_KERNEL, but I do have plenty with "Only 0 free buffers remaining" with GFP_ATOMIC. Does that indicate a bug or could they fall under the ratelimit somehow? Or do I misunderstand the logic? -- 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