From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CD16B007B for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:24:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:24:47 +0000 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC failures V2 Message-ID: <20091106092447.GC25926@csn.ul.ie> References: <1256221356-26049-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20091106060323.GA5528@yumi.tdiedrich.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091106060323.GA5528@yumi.tdiedrich.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Tobias Diedrich , 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 Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 07:03:23AM +0100, Tobias Diedrich wrote: > Mel Gorman wrote: > > [No BZ ID] Kernel crash on 2.6.31.x (kcryptd: page allocation failure..) > > This apparently is easily reproducible, particular in comparison to > > the other reports. The point of greatest interest is that this is > > order-0 GFP_ATOMIC failures. Sven, I'm hoping that you in particular > > will be able to follow the tests below as you are the most likely > > person to have an easily reproducible situation. > > I've also seen order-0 failures on 2.6.31.5: > Note that this is with a one process hogging and mlocking memory and > min_free_kbytes reduced to 100 to reproduce the problem more easily. > Is that a vanilla, with patches 1-3 applied or both? > I tried bisecting the issue, but in the end without memory pressure > I can't reproduce it reliably and with the above mentioned pressure > I get allocation failures even on 2.6.30.o > To be honest, it's not entirely unexpected with min_free_kbytes set that low. The system should cope with a certain amount of pressure but with pressure and a low min_free_kbytes, the system will simply be reacting too late to free memory in the non-atomic paths. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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