On Fri 04-12-15 09:53:35, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Mel Gorman writes:
[...]
> > What is the result of the __GFP_HIGH patch to give it access to
> > reserves?
>
> Applied Michal's patch on v4.4-rc3 and tested again, now there is no
> page allocation failure.
I still think this is just a coincidence a
Mel Gorman writes:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:46:53PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Mel Gorman writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:15:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> >> > > I didn't mention this allocation failure because I am not sure it is
>> >> > > really related.
>> >> > >
>> >>
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:46:53PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Mel Gorman writes:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:15:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > > I didn't mention this allocation failure because I am not sure it is
> >> > > really related.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I'm fairly sure it
Mel Gorman writes:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:15:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > > I didn't mention this allocation failure because I am not sure it is
>> > > really related.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I'm fairly sure it is. The failure is an allocation site that cannot
>> > sleep but did not spec
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 03:15:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I didn't mention this allocation failure because I am not sure it is
> > > really related.
> > >
> >
> > I'm fairly sure it is. The failure is an allocation site that cannot
> > sleep but did not specify __GFP_HIGH.
>
> yeah but
On Wed 02-12-15 14:08:52, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:00:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 02-12-15 11:00:09, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:14:24AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > > > There is no reference to OOM possibility in the email that I can s
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:00:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 02-12-15 11:00:09, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:14:24AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > > There is no reference to OOM possibility in the email that I can see.
> > > > Can
> > > > you give examples of the OO
On Wed 02-12-15 11:00:09, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:14:24AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > There is no reference to OOM possibility in the email that I can see. Can
> > > you give examples of the OOM messages that shows the problem sites? It was
> > > suspected that there may
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:04:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 01-12-15 12:23:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:02:00PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [Let's CC Will - see the question at the end of the email please]
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > Th
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:14:24AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > There is no reference to OOM possibility in the email that I can see. Can
> > you give examples of the OOM messages that shows the problem sites? It was
> > suspected that there may be some callers that were accidentally depending
> >
On Tue 01-12-15 12:23:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:02:00PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [Let's CC Will - see the question at the end of the email please]
>
> [...]
>
> > > > There is no reference to OOM possibility in the email that I can see.
> > > > Can
Hi Michal,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:02:00PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Let's CC Will - see the question at the end of the email please]
[...]
> > > There is no reference to OOM possibility in the email that I can see. Can
> > > you give examples of the OOM messages that shows the problem si
[Let's CC Will - see the question at the end of the email please]
This seems to be a similar allocation failure reported
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/87oafjpnb1.fsf%40yhuang-dev.intel.com
where I failed to see the important point, more on that below.
On Mon 30-11-15 10:14:24, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Mel
Mel Gorman writes:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:14:52AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Mel,
>>
>> Mel Gorman writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:56:12AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>> >>
>> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:14:52AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Mel,
>
> Mel Gorman writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:56:12AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> >>
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
Hi, Mel,
Mel Gorman writes:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:56:12AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>> commit d0164adc89f6bb374d304ffcc375c6d2652fe67d ("mm, page_alloc:
>> distin
On 11/26/2015 08:25 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:56:12AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
FYI, we noticed the below changes on
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
commit d0164adc89f6bb374d304ffcc375c6d2652fe67d ("mm, page_alloc: distingui
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:56:12AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> commit d0164adc89f6bb374d304ffcc375c6d2652fe67d ("mm, page_alloc: distinguish
> between being unable to sleep,
FYI, we noticed the below changes on
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
commit d0164adc89f6bb374d304ffcc375c6d2652fe67d ("mm, page_alloc: distinguish
between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and avoiding waking kswapd")
Note: the testing machine is
19 matches
Mail list logo
