On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote: > 1. If the allocation can be satisified in the usual way, do that. > 2. Otherwise, if the GFP flags do not include __GFP_MEMALLOC or > PF_MEMALLOC is not set, fail the allocation > 3. Otherwise, if the memcache's reserve quota is not reached, > satisfy the request, allocating a new page from the MEMALLOC reserve, > but the memcache's reserve counter and succeed
Maybe we need to kill PF_MEMALLOC.... > > Try NUMA constraints and zone limitations. > > Are you worried about a correctness issue that would prevent the > machine from operating, or are you just worried about allocating > reserve pages to the local node for performance reasons? I am worried that allocation constraints will make the approach incorrect. Because logically you must have distinct pools for each set of allocations constraints. Otherwise something will drain the precious reserve slab. > > No I mean all 1024 processors of our system running into this fail/succeed > > thingy that was added. > > If an allocation now fails that would have succeeded in the past, the > patch set is buggy. I can't say for sure one way or another at this > time of night. If you see something, could you please mention a > file/line number? It seems that allocations fail that the reclaim logic should have taken care of letting succeed. Not good. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
