> -----Original Messages----- > From: "Greg KH" <greg@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent Time: 2019-03-08 15:21:52 (Friday) > To: wuzhouhui <wuzhouhui14@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: How to avoid or reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failed > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:37:26PM +0800, wuzhouhui wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I check kernel code and found that GFP_ATOMIC allocation will > > use emergency pool and maybe failed if emergency pool is not > > enough. And GFP_ATOMIC doesn't trigger reclaim (because of > > ATOMIC) even if there are a lot of page caches. So my question > > is how to avoid or reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failed if there > > are enough reclaimable memory? Is there some kernel parameters > > can be configured? > > Have you seen the ATOMIC pools be used up and not able to be reclaimed > in real-world usages? If so, I'm sure the mm developers would love to No, I haven't seen this scenario. But I encountered the similar issue with [1] (order is 5 in my scenario), and this issue is not resolved for now. Thanks. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53936183/linux-disk-cache-and-kmalloc-with-gfp-atomic# > hear from you about this as I really do not think that is a situation > that can happen easily, if at all. > > And no, I do not think there are any such parameters, the kernel should > be self-tuning for things like this. > > thanks, > > greg k-h _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
