On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > Mel, > > Today Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 02:36:53AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > > Hmm, is this really supposed to be added to __alloc_pages_high_priority()? > > > > > By the patch description I was expecting kswapd to be woken up > > > > > preemptively whenever the preferred zone is below ALLOC_WMARK_LOW and > > > > > we're known to have just allocated at a higher order, not just when > > > > > current was oom killed (when we should already be freeing a _lot_ of > > > > > memory soon) or is doing a higher order allocation during direct reclaim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was a somewhat arbitrary choice to have it trigger in the event high > > > > priority allocations were happening frequently. > > > > > > > > > > I don't quite understand, users of PF_MEMALLOC shouldn't be doing these > > > higher order allocations and if ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS is by way of the oom > > > killer, we should be freeing a substantial amount of memory imminently > > > when it exits that waking up kswapd would be irrelevant. > > > > > > > I agree. I think it's highly unlikely this patch will make any > > difference but I wanted to eliminate it as a possibility. Patch 3 and 4 > > were previously one patch that were tested together. > > hi hi ... I have tested '3 only' this morning, and the allocation > problems started again ... so for me 3 alone does not work while > 3+4 does. > Hi, What was the outcome of 1+2? -- 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
