From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:30:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:30:11 -0400 Received: from [195.223.140.107] ([195.223.140.107]:32239 "EHLO athlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:30:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:29:04 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: tpepper@vato.org Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Paul Larson , Linus Torvalds , Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?Borntr=E4ger?= , Jacek =?iso-8859-1?Q?=5Biso-8859-2=5D_Pop=B3awski?= , lkml Subject: Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed Message-ID: <20010926202904.P27945@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20010926000922.I8350@athlon.random> <20010926010516.V8350@athlon.random> <20010926111509.A3332@cb.vato.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010926111509.A3332@cb.vato.org>; from tpepper@vato.org on Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 11:15:09AM -0700 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 11:15:09AM -0700, tpepper@vato.org wrote: > On Wed 26 Sep at 01:05:16 +0200 andrea@suse.de done said: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 06:25:10PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > Does vm-tweaks-1 fixes the current problem we're seeing? > > > > it seems no by reading the last email, however I'm not seeing any > > problem, the DEBUG_GFP will tell us where the problem cames from, > > pssobly it's a highmem thing since I never reproduced anything bad here. > > But the point is that the above isn't going to be a right fix anyways. > > vm-tweaks-1 fixes things for me. I've got 512MB ram (kernel not > configured for highmem) and 1 gig of swap. The workload is heavy file > i/o and has now been running almost 24 hours (about 2 billion I/Os or > a few TB of data I think so far). Previously all the memory was being > consumed by cache, nothing swapped (as expected if the memory is cached > buffer i/o right?) and I'd get the: yes, unless the buffered I/O was identified as your very working set but even in such case the 2.4.10 vm shouldn't swapout too early. > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed > Now I continue to see the memory consumption / no swap, and no more > error...iow the expected behaviour. good. As far I can tell it is the check in swap_out that is making the difference and fixing the oom problem, it was very intentional indeed. > On an unrelated note if I want to backport the async I/O changes in 2.4.10, > are there patches from you I should apply other than: > 2.4.10pre10aa1/40_blkdev-pagecache-17 > 2.4.7pre8aa1/41_blkdev-pagecache-5_drop_get_bh_async-1 both patches are now included in mainline 2.4.10. thanks, Andrea