From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:47:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:47:43 -0400 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.48]:28169 "EHLO humbolt.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:47:33 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Robert Love Subject: Re: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 03:54:57 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , Chris Mason In-Reply-To: <1000581501.32705.46.camel@phantasy> <20010916012129Z16244-2758+66@humbolt.nl.linux.org> In-Reply-To: <20010916012129Z16244-2758+66@humbolt.nl.linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20010916014743Z16121-2757+259@humbolt.nl.linux.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On September 16, 2001 03:28 am, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On September 15, 2001 09:18 pm, Robert Love wrote: > > On Sun, 2001-09-09 at 23:24, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > This may not be your fault. It's a GFP_NOFS recursive allocation - this > > > comes either from grow_buffers or ReiserFS, probably the former. In > > > either case, it means we ran completely out of free pages, even though > > > the caller is willing to wait. Hmm. It smells like a loophole in vm > > > scanning. Oh, wait, I was working off 2.4.9 source, and your user had the problem with 2.4.9-pre4, where we have GFP_NOHIGHIO. So - reinterpreting the bits - all those failures are bounce buffer allocations. People are also getting these failures without your patch, so relax ;-) Maybe allowing preemption inside page_launder makes it happen more often. -- Daniel