From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01AA86B004F for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:51:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:51:39 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures (generic) Message-ID: <20091020125139.GF11778@csn.ul.ie> References: <20091019133146.GB9036@csn.ul.ie> <20091019140957.GE9036@csn.ul.ie> <20091019145954.GH9036@csn.ul.ie> <20091020105746.GD11778@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Tobias Oetiker Cc: Frans Pop , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Reinette Chatre , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Karol Lewandowski , Mohamed Abbas , "John W. Linville" , linux-mm@kvack.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com List-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > Hi Mel, > > Today Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:17:06PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121600] [] skb_copy+0x32/0xa0 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121615] [] vboxNetFltLinuxPacketHandler+0x5c/0xd0 [vboxnetflt] [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121620] [] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x142/0x320 [kern.warning] > > > > Are the number of failures at least reduced or are they occuring at the > > same rate? > > not that it would have any statistical significance, but I had 5 > failure (clusters) yesterday morning and 5 this morning ... > Before the patches were applied, how many failures were you seeing in the morning? > the failures often show up in groups I saved one on > http://tobi.oetiker.ch/cluster-2009-10-20-08-31.txt > > > Also, what was the last kernel that worked for you with this > > configuration? > > that would be 2.6.24 ... I have not upgraded in quite some time. > But since the io performance of 2.6.31 is about double in my tests > I thought it would be a good thing todo ... > That significant a different in performance may explain differences in timing as well. i.e. the allocator is being put under more pressure now than it was previously as more processes make forward progress. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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: email@kvack.org