On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 26 February 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > Isn't it a bit strange that cache claims so much memory that real > > > processes get into allocation failures? > > > > All of the failed allocations seem to be GFP_ATOMIC so it's not _that_ > > strange. > > It's still very ugly though. And I would say it should be unnecessary. > > > Dunno if anything changed recently. What's the last known good kernel for > > you? > > I've not used that box very intensively in the past, but I first saw the > allocation failure with aptitude with either .31 or .32. I would be > extremely surprised if I could reproduce the problem with .30. > And I have done large rsyncs to the box without any problems in the past, > but that must have been with .24 or so kernels. > > It seems likely to me that it's related to all the other swap and > allocation issues we've been seeing after .30. Hmmm.. How long is the allocation that fails? SLUB can always fall back to order 0 allocs if the object is < PAGE_SIZE. SLAB cannot do so if it has decided to use a higher order slab cache for a kmalloc cache. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>