Re: [patch v3] swap: virtual swap readahead

[Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@intel.com>]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:32:14 -0700
"Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 06:05:14PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 17:59 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:42:56PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 16:56 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes it worked!  But then I run into page allocation failures:
> > > > > 
> > > > > [  340.639803] Xorg: page allocation failure. order:4,
> > > > > mode:0x40d0 [  340.645744] Pid: 3258, comm: Xorg Not tainted
> > > > > 2.6.30-rc8-mm1 #303 [  340.651839] Call Trace:
> > > > > [  340.654289]  [<ffffffff810c8204>]
> > > > > __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x344/0x6c0 [  340.660645]
> > > > > [<ffffffff810f7489>] __slab_alloc_page+0xb9/0x3b0
> > > > > [  340.666472]  [<ffffffff810f8608>] __kmalloc+0x198/0x250
> > > > > [  340.671786]  [<ffffffffa014bf9f>] ?
> > > > > i915_gem_execbuffer+0x17f/0x11e0 [i915] [  340.678746]
> > > > > [<ffffffffa014bf9f>] i915_gem_execbuffer+0x17f/0x11e0 [i915]
> > > > 
> > > > Jesse Barnes had a patch to add a vmalloc fallback to those
> > > > largish kms allocs.
> > > > 
> > > > But order-4 allocs failing isn't really strange, but it might
> > > > indicate this patch fragments stuff sooner, although I've seen
> > > > these particular failues before.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the tip. Where is it? I'd like to try it out :)
> > 
> > commit 8e7d2b2c6ecd3c21a54b877eae3d5be48292e6b5
> > Author: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
> > Date:   Fri May 8 16:13:25 2009 -0700
> > 
> >     drm/i915: allocate large pointer arrays with vmalloc
> 
> Thanks! It is already in the -mm tree, but it missed on conversion :)
> 
> I'll retry with this patch tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c index 39f5c65..7132dbe 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -3230,8 +3230,8 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev,
> void *data, }
>  
>  	if (args->num_cliprects != 0) {
> -		cliprects = drm_calloc(args->num_cliprects,
> sizeof(*cliprects),
> -				       DRM_MEM_DRIVER);
> +		cliprects = drm_calloc_large(args->num_cliprects,
> +					     sizeof(*cliprects));
>  		if (cliprects == NULL)
>  			goto pre_mutex_err;
>  
> @@ -3474,8 +3474,7 @@ err:
>  pre_mutex_err:
>  	drm_free_large(object_list);
>  	drm_free_large(exec_list);
> -	drm_free(cliprects, sizeof(*cliprects) * args->num_cliprects,
> -		 DRM_MEM_DRIVER);
> +	drm_free_large(cliprects);
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }

Kristian posted a fix to my drm_calloc_large function as well; one of
the size checks in drm_calloc_large (the one which decides whether to
use kmalloc or vmalloc) was just checking size instead of size * num,
so you may be hitting that.

Jesse

--
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>