From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Memory management woes - order 1 allocation failures
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:32:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201003120432.06149.elendil@planet.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100302222933.GF11355@csn.ul.ie>
On Tuesday 02 March 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 10:17:51PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > -#define TTY_BUFFER_PAGE ((PAGE_SIZE - 256) / 2)
> > > +#define TTY_BUFFER_PAGE (((PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct tty_buffer)) /
> > > 2) & ~0xFF)
> >
> > Yes agreed I missed a '-1'
>
> Frans, would you mind testing your NAS box with the following patch
> applied please? It should apply cleanly on top of 2.6.33-rc7. Thanks
Thanks Mel.
I've been running with this patch for about a week now and have so far not
seen any more allocation failures. I've tried doing large rsyncs a few
times.
It's not 100% conclusive, but I would say it improves things and I've
certainly not noticed any issues with the patch.
Before I got the patch I noticed that the default value for
vm.min_free_kbytes was only 1442 for this machine. Isn't that on the low
side? Could that have been a factor?
My concern is that, although fixing bugs in GFP_ATOMIC allocations is
certainly very good, I can't help wondering why the system does not keep a
bit more memory in reserve instead of using everything up for relatively
silly things like cache and buffers.
What if during an rsync I plug in some USB device whose driver has some
valid GFP_ATOMIC allocations? Shouldn't the memory manager allow for such
situations?
Cheers,
FJP
> tty: Keep the default buffering to sub-page units
>
> We allocate during interrupts so while our buffering is normally diced
> up small anyway on some hardware at speed we can pressure the VM
> excessively for page pairs. We don't really need big buffers to be
> linear so don't try so hard.
>
> In order to make this work well we will tidy up excess callers to
> request_room, which cannot itself enforce this break up.
>
> [mel@csn.ul.ie: Adjust TTY_BUFFER_PAGE to take padding into account]
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Tested-by: Frans Pop <fjp@planet.nl>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Memory management woes - order 1 allocation failures
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:32:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201003120432.06149.elendil@planet.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100302222933.GF11355@csn.ul.ie>
On Tuesday 02 March 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 10:17:51PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > -#define TTY_BUFFER_PAGE ((PAGE_SIZE - 256) / 2)
> > > +#define TTY_BUFFER_PAGE (((PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct tty_buffer)) /
> > > 2) & ~0xFF)
> >
> > Yes agreed I missed a '-1'
>
> Frans, would you mind testing your NAS box with the following patch
> applied please? It should apply cleanly on top of 2.6.33-rc7. Thanks
Thanks Mel.
I've been running with this patch for about a week now and have so far not
seen any more allocation failures. I've tried doing large rsyncs a few
times.
It's not 100% conclusive, but I would say it improves things and I've
certainly not noticed any issues with the patch.
Before I got the patch I noticed that the default value for
vm.min_free_kbytes was only 1442 for this machine. Isn't that on the low
side? Could that have been a factor?
My concern is that, although fixing bugs in GFP_ATOMIC allocations is
certainly very good, I can't help wondering why the system does not keep a
bit more memory in reserve instead of using everything up for relatively
silly things like cache and buffers.
What if during an rsync I plug in some USB device whose driver has some
valid GFP_ATOMIC allocations? Shouldn't the memory manager allow for such
situations?
Cheers,
FJP
> tty: Keep the default buffering to sub-page units
>
> We allocate during interrupts so while our buffering is normally diced
> up small anyway on some hardware at speed we can pressure the VM
> excessively for page pairs. We don't really need big buffers to be
> linear so don't try so hard.
>
> In order to make this work well we will tidy up excess callers to
> request_room, which cannot itself enforce this break up.
>
> [mel@csn.ul.ie: Adjust TTY_BUFFER_PAGE to take padding into account]
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Tested-by: Frans Pop <fjp@planet.nl>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-12 3:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-26 11:32 Memory management woes - order 1 allocation failures Frans Pop
2010-02-26 12:24 ` Frans Pop
2010-02-26 12:24 ` Frans Pop
2010-02-26 14:01 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-02-26 14:01 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-02-26 15:33 ` Frans Pop
2010-02-26 15:33 ` Frans Pop
2010-02-26 16:43 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-02-26 16:43 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-02-26 17:17 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-02-26 17:17 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-03-01 1:42 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-03-01 1:42 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-03-02 17:26 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-02 17:26 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-02 18:34 ` Alan Cox
2010-03-02 18:34 ` Alan Cox
2010-03-02 19:11 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-02 19:11 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-02 19:29 ` Greg KH
2010-03-02 19:29 ` Greg KH
2010-03-02 21:16 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-02 21:16 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-02 22:17 ` Alan Cox
2010-03-02 22:17 ` Alan Cox
2010-03-02 22:29 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-02 22:29 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-12 3:32 ` Frans Pop [this message]
2010-03-12 3:32 ` Frans Pop
2010-03-02 23:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-03-02 23:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201003120432.06149.elendil@planet.nl \
--to=elendil@planet.nl \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.