Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate fix V3

Mel Gorman
2009-11-13T13:37:46Z

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 01:47:35PM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Hi Mel,
>
> Yesterday Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the long delay in posting another version. Testing is extremely
> > time-consuming and I wasn't getting to work on this as much as I'd have liked.
> >
> > Changelog since V2
> > o Dropped the kswapd-quickly-notice-high-order patch. In more detailed
> > testing, it made latencies even worse as kswapd slept more on high-order
> > congestion causing order-0 direct reclaims.
> > o Added changes to how congestion_wait() works
> > o Added a number of new patches altering the behaviour of reclaim
>
> so is there anything promissing for the order 5 allocation problems
> in this set?
>

Yes. While the change in timing of direct reclaimers might be less
important when dm-crypt is not involved, kswapd is more pro-active about
maintaining the watermarks.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab