[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: Memory Problem in 2.4.10-pre2 / __alloc_pages failed
From:       Daniel Phillips <phillips () bonn-fries ! net>
Date:       2001-08-31 18:59:51
[Download RAW message or body]

On August 31, 2001 01:06 pm, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:36:10 +0200
> Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net> wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > Let's try another way of dealing with it.  What I'm trying to do with the
> > patch below is leave a small reserve of 1/12 of pages->min, above the
> > emergency reserve, to be consumed by non-PF_MEMALLOC atomic allocators.
> > Please bear in mind this is completely untested, but would you try it
> > please and see if the failure frequency goes down?
> > 
> > --- ../2.4.9.clean/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Aug 16 12:43:02 2001
> > +++ ./mm/page_alloc.c	Wed Aug 29 23:47:39 2001
> > @@ -493,6 +493,9 @@
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		/* XXX: is pages_min/4 a good amount to reserve for this? */
> > +		if (z->free_pages < z->pages_min / 3 && (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) &&
> > +				!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC))
> > +			continue;
> >  		if (z->free_pages < z->pages_min / 4 &&
> >  				!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC))
> >  			continue;
> > 
> 
> Hello Daniel,
> 
> I tried this patch and it makes _no_ difference. Failures show up in same 
> situation and amount. Do you need traces? They look the same

OK, first would you confirm that the frequency of 0 order failures has
stayed the same?

If some other thread is always in PF_MEMALLOC when these failures are 
happening then no, this approach would not be any help.

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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]