On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:28:46PM -0400, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> It works only if the zone meets high watermark. If allocation is >> >> faster than reclaim(ie, it's true for slow swap device), the zone >> >> would remain congested. >> >> It means swapout would block. >> >> As we see the OOM log, we can know that DMA32 zone can't meet high watermark. >> >> >> >> Does my guessing make sense? >> > >> > Hi Andrew. >> > I got failed your scenario in my machine so could you be willing to >> > test this patch for proving my above scenario? >> > The patch is just revert patch of 0e093d99[do not sleep on the >> > congestion queue...] for 2.6.38.6. >> > I would like to test it for proving my above zone congestion scenario. >> > >> > I did it based on 2.6.38.6 for your easy apply so you must apply it >> > cleanly on vanilla v2.6.38.6. >> > And you have to add !pgdat_balanced and shrink_slab patch. >> >> No, because my laptop just decided that it doesn't like to turn on. :( >> >> I'll test it on my VM on Tuesday and (fingers crossed) on my repaired >> laptop next weekend. > > Any updates on this? > Sorry, got distracted by writing my thesis. This patch (Revert "writeback: do not sleep on the congestion queue if there are no congested BDIs or if significant congestion is not being encountered in the current zone") does not fix the problem; if anything it triggers more easily with the patch (at least in KVM). --Andy -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>