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

[Mel Gorman]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 01:47:35PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Hi Mel,
> 
> Yesterday Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > Sorry for the long delay in posting another version. Testing is extremely
> > time-consuming and I wasn't getting to work on this as much as I'd have liked.
> >
> > Changelog since V2
> >   o Dropped the kswapd-quickly-notice-high-order patch. In more detailed
> >     testing, it made latencies even worse as kswapd slept more on high-order
> >     congestion causing order-0 direct reclaims.
> >   o Added changes to how congestion_wait() works
> >   o Added a number of new patches altering the behaviour of reclaim
> 
> so is there anything promissing for the order 5 allocation problems
> in this set?
> 

Yes. While the change in timing of direct reclaimers might be less
important when dm-crypt is not involved, kswapd is more pro-active about
maintaining the watermarks.

-- 
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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/