On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:34:18PM +0800, wuzhouhui wrote: > > -----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. Please work with the company that created your out-of-tree kernel networking code as it sounds like they do not know how to properly handle this type of problem :) good luck! greg k-h _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
