Hi Ben, On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 08:01 +0100, Rik Theys wrote: >> > The allocation failure has already been reported as #636306. I >> > proposed a fix for that in <http://bugs.debian.org/636306#35>. >>
>> The patch in #636306 has not been tested so far? I can not apply the >> patch on our production system, but I can try to see if I can >> reproduce the bug on a test machine. Has the patch been sent upstream? > > I think I may have given it a minimal test, but until someone else gives > it a more serious test I won't send it upstream. The following Red Hat bug is about the same issue and a comment was added that Trond has proposed patches to resolve this. I have not yet compared the patches against yours (maybe they are the same). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730045 I haven't found the time to try and determine a procedure to reliably reproduce this problem to see if your and/or Trond's patches resolve this. >> On our production system I've also increased vm.min_free_kbytes to >> 512MB, which I believed would reduce the number of times we're seeing >> these allocation failures. But it doesn't seem to help all that much. >> The system has 72GB ram so I could increase it to 1GB or something. >> Would that make sense? > > I'm not sure that's going to make a difference - keeping lots of memory > available does not guarantee that there will be any large physically > contiguous blocks as the idmapper is demanding. You are right, it doesn't make a difference. Regards, Rik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capwv0jkqe6k4zssxfcgs0yxzvvodpkf7ghdtiy4dorzri03...@mail.gmail.com
