Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMICfailures V2

From: Mel Gorman
Date: Fri Nov 06 2009 - 04:24:59 EST

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
> 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at