From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Sep 2001 23:36:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Sep 2001 23:36:36 -0400 Received: from family.zawodny.com ([63.174.200.26]:35089 "EHLO family.zawodny.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Sep 2001 23:36:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 20:37:46 -0700 From: Jeremy Zawodny To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Robert Love , Arjan Filius , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch Message-ID: <20010909203746.B640@peach.zawodny.com> In-Reply-To: <1000071474.16805.20.camel@phantasy> <20010910031728Z16177-26183+705@humbolt.nl.linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010910031728Z16177-26183+705@humbolt.nl.linux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-message-flag: Mailbox corrupt. Please upgrade your mail software. X-Uptime: 20:36:14 up 42 days, 18:34, 10 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 05:24:36AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On September 9, 2001 11:37 pm, Robert Love wrote: > > On Sun, 2001-09-09 at 17:23, Arjan Filius wrote: > > > After my succes report i _do_ noticed something unusual: > > > > > > I'm not sure it's preempt related, but you wanted feedback :) > > > > > > Sep 9 23:08:02 sjoerd kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/1). > > > Sep 9 23:08:02 sjoerd last message repeated 93 times > > > Sep 9 23:08:02 sjoerd kernel: cation failed (gfp=0x70/1). > > > Sep 9 23:08:02 sjoerd kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/1). > > > This may not be your fault. It's a GFP_NOFS recursive allocation - > this comes either from grow_buffers or ReiserFS, probably the > former. In either case, it means we ran completely out of free > pages, even though the caller is willing to wait. Hmm. It smells > like a loophole in vm scanning. I've seen that error on a couple 2.4.9 systems at work. It's certainly VM related, 'cause it doesn't happen when I disable swap on them. I've disabled it for performance reasons (the VM system is a little retarded in 2.4.x IMHO, so I'm just not letting it swap). Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/