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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 21:00:35 EST