Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from_freelist
From: Pavel Machek
Date: Sun Jun 28 2009 - 06:45:45 EST
On Wed 2009-06-24 12:46:02, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Lookie here. This is 2.6.0:mm/page_alloc.c:
> > >
> > > do_retry = 0;
> > > if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
> > > if ((order <= 3) || (gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT))
> > > do_retry = 1;
> > > if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)
> > > do_retry = 1;
> > > }
> > > if (do_retry) {
> > > blk_congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/50);
> > > goto rebalance;
> > > }
> >
> > rebalance:
> > if ((p->flags & (PF_MEMALLOC | PF_MEMDIE)) && !in_interrupt()) {
> > /* go through the zonelist yet again, ignoring mins */
> > for (i = 0; zones[i] != NULL; i++) {
> > struct zone *z = zones[i];
> >
> > page = buffered_rmqueue(z, order, cold);
> > if (page)
> > goto got_pg;
> > }
> > goto nopage;
> > }
>
> Your point?
>
> That's the recursive allocation or oom case. Not the normal case at all.
>
> The _normal_ case is to do the whole "try_to_free_pages()" case and try
> and try again. Forever.
>
> IOW, we have traditionally never failed small kernel allocations. It makes
> perfect sense that people _depend_ on that.
Ok, so we should re-add that 4MB buffer to suspend, so that
allocations work even during that, right?
...and... if you do enough of small allocations, they *will* have to
fail at some point. Maybe linux is now mature enough and running on
small enough devices that it makes sense to start handling that?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/