From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BB2A6B0044 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:03:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so9013069bwz.6 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:03:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 03:03:01 +0100 From: Karol Lewandowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC failures V2 Message-ID: <20091104020301.GA7037@bizet.domek.prywatny> References: <1256221356-26049-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20091023165810.GA4588@bizet.domek.prywatny> <20091023211239.GA6185@bizet.domek.prywatny> <9ec2d7290910240646p75b93c68v6ea1648d628a9660@mail.gmail.com> <20091028114208.GA14476@bizet.domek.prywatny> <20091028115926.GW8900@csn.ul.ie> <20091030142350.GA9343@bizet.domek.prywatny> <20091102203034.GC22046@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091102203034.GC22046@csn.ul.ie> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Karol Lewandowski , Frans Pop , Jiri Kosina , Sven Geggus , 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 Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 08:30:34PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > Does applying the following on top make any difference? > > ==== CUT HERE ==== > PM: Shrink memory before suspend No, this patch didn't change anything either. IIRC I get failures while free(1) shows as much as 20MB free RAM (ie. without buffers/caches). Additionaly nr_free_pages (from /proc/vmstat) stays at about 800-1000 under heavy memory pressure (gitk on full linux repository). --- babbling follows --- Hmm, I wonder if it's really timing issue then wouldn't be the case that lowering swappiness sysctl would make problem more visible? I've vm.swappiness=15, would testing with higher value make any sense? 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