Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC failures V2
From: Mel Gorman <hidden>
Date: 2009-11-06 09:24:46
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 07:03:23AM +0100, Tobias Diedrich wrote:
Mel Gorman wrote:quoted
[No BZ ID] Kernel crash on 2.6.31.x (kcryptd: page allocation failure..) This apparently is easily reproducible, particular in comparison to the other reports. The point of greatest interest is that this is order-0 GFP_ATOMIC failures. Sven, I'm hoping that you in particular will be able to follow the tests below as you are the most likely person to have an easily reproducible situation.I've also seen order-0 failures on 2.6.31.5: Note that this is with a one process hogging and mlocking memory and min_free_kbytes reduced to 100 to reproduce the problem more easily.
Is that a vanilla, with patches 1-3 applied or both?
I tried bisecting the issue, but in the end without memory pressure I can't reproduce it reliably and with the above mentioned pressure I get allocation failures even on 2.6.30.o
To be honest, it's not entirely unexpected with min_free_kbytes set that low. The system should cope with a certain amount of pressure but with pressure and a low min_free_kbytes, the system will simply be reacting too late to free memory in the non-atomic paths. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab