On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On August 23, 2001 02:10 am, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > On August 22, 2001 09:05 pm, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > > What can we do right now? We could always just comment out the alloc failed
> > > > > message. The result will be a lot of busy waiting on dirty page writeout
> > > > > which will work but it will keep us from focussing on the question: how did
> > > > > we get so short of bounce buffers? Well, maybe we are submitting too much IO
> > > > > without intelligent throttling (/me waves at Ben). That sounds like the
> > > > > place to attack first.
> > > >
> > > > We can just wait on the writeout of lowmem buffers at page_launder()
> > > > (which will not cause IO buffering since we are doing lowmem IO, duh), and
> > > > then we are done.
> > > >
> > > > Take a look at the patch I posted before (__GFP_NOBOUNCE).
> > >
> > > A little light reading for a Wednesday afternoon ;-)
> > >
> > > Nice hack, way to go. So this will wait synchronously in try_to_free_buffers
> > > if we have to go around twice in alloc_bounce_page or alloc_bounce_bh (the
> > > latter eventually resulting in a page_alloc from kmem_cache grow).
> > Not synchronously, no. It will just allow allocations trying to get memory
> > for bounce buffering to block on lowmem IO.
> Whoops, it's been a while since I read page_launder. Hey! Major cleanup.
> It's much easier to understand what it's doing now.
> OK, sync_page_buffers no longer does what its name says, or implements what
> its comment says it does. Now the GFP_WAIT just means wait on already-locked
> buffers so that IO can be initiated. (By the way, there are bunch of
> comments in try_to_free_buffers that lie now.) OK, so the busy wait is
> implemented in alloc_bounce_page, and page_launder is just used to start IO,
> fine. Hmm, I think I will try my semaphore idea, not because you haven't
> solved the problem, but because I think a lot of CPU-wasting trips into
> page_launder could be eliminated. (A 2.5 thing of course.)
There is no real CPU-wasting trips into page_launder().
As soon as we find a dirty, lowmem, unlocked page with ->buffers, we block
on IO there.
> > With this behaviour, its safe to completly remove Ingo's emergency scheme.
> Yes, so why don't you add that to your patch, and also the correction to the
> page->zone test and call it [PATCH]?
Will do it soon.
> > > What does SLAB_LEVEL_MASK do? Did you find out by hitting the BUG when you
> > > tried the patch? Anyway, it needs a comment.
> > SLAB_LEVEL_MASK is the mask for SLAB-valid allocations.
> And "LEVEL" means?
No idea. Nothing, probably.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 21:00:53 EST