On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 11:20 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > start 2 processes that each mmap a separate 64M file, and which does
> > sequential writes on them. start a 3th process that does the same with
> > 64M anonymous.
> >
> > wait for a while, and you'll see order=1 failures.
>
> Really? That means we can no longer even allocate stacks for forking.
>
> Its surprising that neither lumpy reclaim nor the mobility patches can
> deal with it? Lumpy reclaim should be able to free neighboring pages to
> avoid the order 1 failure unless there are lots of pinned pages.
>
> I guess then that lots of pages are pinned through I/O?
memory got massively fragemented, as anti-frag gets easily defeated.
setting min_free_kbytes to 12M does seem to solve it - it forces 2 max
order blocks to stay available, so we don't mix types. however 12M on
128M is rather a lot.
its still on my todo list to look at it further..
-
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]
