Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 20-03-15 22:34:21, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Huang Ying wrote: > > > > > BTW: the test is run on 32 bit system. > > > > > > > > That sounds like the cause of your problem. The system might be out of > > > > address space available for the kernel (only 1GB if x86_32). You should > > > > try running tests on 64 bit systems. > > > > > > We run test on 32 bit and 64 bit systems. Try to catch problems on both > > > platforms. I think we still need to support 32 bit systems? > > > > Yes, testing on both platforms is good. But please read > > http://lwn.net/Articles/627419/ , http://lwn.net/Articles/635354/ and > > http://lwn.net/Articles/636017/ . Then please add __GFP_NORETRY to memory > > allocations in btrfs code if it is appropriate. > > I guess you meant __GFP_NOFAIL? > No. btrfs's selftest (which is not using __GFP_NOFAIL) is already looping forever. If we want to avoid btrfs's selftest from looping forever, btrfs needs __GFP_NORETRY than __GFP_NOFAIL (until we establish a way to safely allow small allocations to fail). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>