On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:04:55PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Frans Pop wrote: > > > And the winner is: > > 2ff05b2b4eac2e63d345fc731ea151a060247f53 is first bad commit > > commit 2ff05b2b4eac2e63d345fc731ea151a060247f53 > > Author: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue Jun 16 15:32:56 2009 -0700 > > > > oom: move oom_adj value from task_struct to mm_struct > > > > I'm confident that the bisection is good. The test case was very reliable > > while zooming in on the merge from akpm. > > > > I doubt it for two reasons: (i) this commit was reverted in 0753ba0 since > 2.6.31-rc7 and is no longer in the kernel, and (ii) these are GFP_ATOMIC > allocations which would be unaffected by oom killer scores. > However, the problem was reported to start showing up in 2.6.31-rc1 so while it might not be *the* patch, it might be making the type of change that caused more fragmentation. This patch adjusted the size of mm_struct and maybe it was enough to change the "order" required for the slab. Maybe there are other slabs that have changed size as well in that timeframe. Frans, what is the size of mm_struct before and after this patch was applied? Find it with either grep mm_struct /proc/slabinfo and if the information is not available there, try cat /sys/kernel/slab/mm_struct/slab_size and /sys/kernel/slab/mm_struct/order Thanks -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
