From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D1ED6B004F for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:58:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:58:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Tobias Oetiker Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures (generic) In-Reply-To: <20091020125139.GF11778@csn.ul.ie> Message-ID: References: <20091019133146.GB9036@csn.ul.ie> <20091019140957.GE9036@csn.ul.ie> <20091019145954.GH9036@csn.ul.ie> <20091020105746.GD11778@csn.ul.ie> <20091020125139.GF11778@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Frans Pop , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Reinette Chatre , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Karol Lewandowski , Mohamed Abbas , "John W. Linville" , linux-mm@kvack.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com List-ID: Hi Mel, Today Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > Hi Mel, > > > > Today Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:17:06PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > > > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121600] [] skb_copy+0x32/0xa0 [kern.warning] > > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121615] [] vboxNetFltLinuxPacketHandler+0x5c/0xd0 [vboxnetflt] [kern.warning] > > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121620] [] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x142/0x320 [kern.warning] > > > > > > Are the number of failures at least reduced or are they occuring at the > > > same rate? > > > > not that it would have any statistical significance, but I had 5 > > failure (clusters) yesterday morning and 5 this morning ... > > > > Before the patches were applied, how many failures were you seeing in > the morning? 5 as well ... before an after ... > > the failures often show up in groups I saved one on > > http://tobi.oetiker.ch/cluster-2009-10-20-08-31.txt > > > > > Also, what was the last kernel that worked for you with this > > > configuration? > > > > that would be 2.6.24 ... I have not upgraded in quite some time. > > But since the io performance of 2.6.31 is about double in my tests > > I thought it would be a good thing todo ... > > > > That significant a different in performance may explain differences in timing > as well. i.e. the allocator is being put under more pressure now than it > was previously as more processes make forward progress. you are saing that the problem might be even older ? we do have 8GB ram and 16 GB swap, so it should not fail to allocate all that often top - 14:58:34 up 19:54, 6 users, load average: 2.09, 1.94, 1.97 Tasks: 451 total, 1 running, 449 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie Cpu(s): 3.5%us, 15.5%sy, 2.0%ni, 72.2%id, 6.5%wa, 0.1%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8198504k total, 7599132k used, 599372k free, 1212636k buffers Swap: 16777208k total, 83568k used, 16693640k free, 610136k cached cheers tobi -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch tobi@oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 -- 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