On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 1. If the allocation can be satisified in the usual way, do that.
> 2. Otherwise, if the GFP flags do not include __GFP_MEMALLOC or
> PF_MEMALLOC is not set, fail the allocation
> 3. Otherwise, if the memcache's reserve quota is not reached,
> satisfy the request, allocating a new page from the MEMALLOC reserve,
> but the memcache's reserve counter and succeed
Maybe we need to kill PF_MEMALLOC....
> > Try NUMA constraints and zone limitations.
>
> Are you worried about a correctness issue that would prevent the
> machine from operating, or are you just worried about allocating
> reserve pages to the local node for performance reasons?
I am worried that allocation constraints will make the approach incorrect.
Because logically you must have distinct pools for each set of allocations
constraints. Otherwise something will drain the precious reserve slab.
> > No I mean all 1024 processors of our system running into this fail/succeed
> > thingy that was added.
>
> If an allocation now fails that would have succeeded in the past, the
> patch set is buggy. I can't say for sure one way or another at this
> time of night. If you see something, could you please mention a
> file/line number?
It seems that allocations fail that the reclaim logic should have taken
care of letting succeed. Not good.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
