Re: Kernel 2.6.9 Multiple Page Allocation Failures

Nick Piggin
2004-12-09T10:29:34Z

Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 07:52:36PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>>32MB seems to be ok but it will require further testing to be sure.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Seems pretty excessive - although maybe your increased socket buffers and
>>txqueuelen are contributing?
>>
>
>Yes they are. Without increasing it is just ok. But increasing is ok in 2.6.6.
>
>

Perhaps they weren't working properly in 2.6.6, or something else is
buggy in
2.6.9. 16MB in 2.6.9 should definitely give a a larger atomic reserve
than 900K
in 2.6.6... so if it isn't an issue with network buffer behaviour, then the
only other possibility AFAIKS is that page reclaim latency or efficiency has
got much worse. This would be unlikely as it should cause problems and
regressions on other workloads.