From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC1286B004D for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fxm20 with SMTP id 20so10255897fxm.38 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:58:10 +0200 From: Karol Lewandowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC failures V2 Message-ID: <20091023165810.GA4588@bizet.domek.prywatny> References: <1256221356-26049-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1256221356-26049-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Frans Pop , Jiri Kosina , Sven Geggus , Karol Lewandowski , Tobias Oetiker , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , David Miller , Reinette Chatre , Kalle Valo , David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mohamed Abbas , Jens Axboe , "John W. Linville" , Pekka Enberg , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stephan von Krawczynski , Kernel Testers List , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:22:31PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: [Cut everything but my bug] > [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100 > Karol Lewandows reported that e100 fails to allocate order-5 > GFP_ATOMIC when loading firmware during resume. This has started > happening relatively recent. > Test 1: Verify your problem occurs on 2.6.32-rc5 if you can Yes, bug is still there. > Test 2: Apply the following two patches and test again > > 1/5 page allocator: Always wake kswapd when restarting an allocation attempt after direct reclaim failed > 2/5 page allocator: Do not allow interrupts to use ALLOC_HARDER > > > These patches correct problems introduced by me during the 2.6.31-rc1 > merge window. The patches were not meant to introduce any functional > changes but two were missed. > > If your problem goes away with just these two patches applied, > please tell me. Likewise. > Test 3: If you are getting allocation failures, try with the following patch > > 3/5 vmscan: Force kswapd to take notice faster when high-order watermarks are being hit > > This is a functional change that causes kswapd to notice sooner > when high-order watermarks have been hit. There have been a number > of changes in page reclaim since 2.6.30 that might have delayed > when kswapd kicks in for higher orders > > If your problem goes away with these three patches applied, please > tell me No, problem doesn't go away with these patches (1+2+3). However, from my testing this particular patch makes it way, way harder to trigger allocation failures (but these are still present). This bothers me - should I test following patches with or without above patch? This patch makes bug harder to find, IMVHO it doesn't fix the real problem. (Rest not tested yet.) Thanks. -- 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