On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Mel Gorman 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 > If that's the case and the problem still persists in 2.6.31-rc7 as reported, then you'd need to compare the current slab order for both mm_struct and signal_struct to the previously known working kernel since the latter is where oom_adj was moved. (You'd still have to check the former to see if there were any mm_struct additions between rc1 and rc7 between the commit and revert, though.) -- 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
