Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidatefix V3

[Karol Lewandowski]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:30:30PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:

> [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100

> Patches 1-3 should be tested first. The testing I've done shows that the
> page allocator and behaviour of congestion_wait() is more in line with
> 2.6.30 than the vanilla kernels.
> 
> It'd be nice to have 2 more tests, applying each patch on top noting any
> behaviour change. i.e. ideally there would be results for
> 
>  o patches 1+2+3
>  o patches 1+2+3+4
>  o patches 1+2+3+4+5
> 
> Of course, any tests results are welcome. The rest of the mail is the
> results of my own tests.

I've tried testing 3+4+5 against 2.6.32-rc7 (1+2 seem to be in
mainline) and got failure.  I've noticed something strange (I think).
I was unable to trigger failures when system was under heavy memory
pressure (i.e. my testing - gitk, firefoxes, etc.).  When I killed
almost all memory hogs, put system into sleep and resumed -- it
failed.  free(1) showed:

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        255240     194052      61188          0       4040      49364
-/+ buffers/cache:     140648     114592
Swap:       514040      72712     441328


Is that ok?  Wild guess -- maybe kswapd doesn't take fragmentation (or
other factors) into account as hard as it used to in 2.6.30?

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/