On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:06:01 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 20:55 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Monday 20 August 2007 18:59:36 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 18:38 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 20 August 2007 12:43:50 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 11:38 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > > > > Hi all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In current git (and for a while now), an attempt to allocate memory
> > with
> > > > > > GFP_ATOMIC will fail if we're below the low watermark level. The only
> > way
> > > > to
> > > > > > access that memory that I can see (not that I've looked that hard) is
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > > > PF_MEMALLOC set (ie from kswapd). I'm wondering if this behaviour is
> > > > correct.
> > > > > > Shouldn't GFP_ATOMIC allocations ignore watermarks too? How about
> > > > GFP_KERNEL?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The following patch is a potential fix for GFP_ATOMIC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > GFP_ATOMIC must fail when below the watermark. GFP_KERNEL has __GFP_WAIT
> > > > > and hence can sleep and wait for reclaim so that should not be a problem
> > > > > (usually).
> > > > >
> > > > > GFP_ATOMIC may not access the reserves because the reserves are needed
> > > > > to get out of OOM deadlocks within the VM. Consider the fact that
> > > > > freeing memory needs memory - if there is no memory free, you cannot
> > > > > free memory and you're pretty much stuck.
> > > >
> > > > I guess, then, the question should be whether the watermark values are
> > > > appropriate. Do we need high order allocations watermarked if this is the
> > > > only purpose, particularly considering that whatever memory is allocated
> > for
> > > > this purpose is essentially useless 99.9% of the time?
> > >
> > > Could you perhaps explain what you're trying to do? No matter what we
> > > do, GFP_ATOMIC will fail eventually, there is only so much one can do
> > > without blocking.
> > >
> > > As for higher order allocations, until we have a full online defrag
> > > solution those too can fail at any moment (even with __GFP_WAIT).
> >
> > I was just trying to make hibernation more reliable in sitations where there's
> > low amounts of memory available. I guess the amount of memory that's reserved
> > for this has increased, because some users have been reporting issues that
> > hadn't appeared before. No problem. I'll work around it.
>
> I think the last time the default reserves were changed was 2.6.12 or
> there about.
>
> Perhaps Mel fiddled with it in .23-rc ?
Could there be a slab vs. slub difference?
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
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]
