From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751907Ab1GTNyR (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:54:17 -0400 Received: from smtp109.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([76.13.13.92]:34067 "HELO smtp109.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751103Ab1GTNyO (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:54:14 -0400 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: hPI7MJ0VM1nRJy0aSQd8tmq_7jw1mS2MbXrlho09qn1f4Xi TNvcyxf_uhJxzofaS7KZ9.8VuEUCY3m.jsNeS8XAsEf0LB8vhcHK7tOUyoaR XA9J2ykVNj_pbiLTUHQrvtdwU6uR61lyS3xr2XLdyoEjFQjmSXVI0O0iMih1 uz6nOuS8N1HHKDpxN0gPNNlT498P8bcy6VPiShLMApfqK1uxa_0hroIIzmn_ TjkHKC0erkg4SHTtayoRu0O4NjR2ojEfuIjeHojIWozljJPUOqmvHN7Jk2KL SbSQG4Pc0x4OA.eKhLpXfVhk9j.edNPg6gOmpMCfFce1WECGp X-Yahoo-SMTP: _Dag8S.swBC1p4FJKLCXbs8NQzyse1SYSgnAbY0- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:54:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@router.home To: Pekka Enberg cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov , Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Matt Mackall , "mgorman@suse.de" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm-slab: allocate kmem_cache with __GFP_REPEAT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20110720121612.28888.38970.stgit@localhost6> <4E26D7EA.3000902@parallels.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > > > The changelog isn't that convincing, really. This is kmem_cache_create() > > > so I'm surprised we'd ever get NULL here in practice. Does this fix some > > > problem you're seeing? If this is really an issue, I'd blame the page > > > allocator as GFP_KERNEL should just work. > > > > nf_conntrack creates separate slab-cache for each net-namespace, > > this patch of course not eliminates the chance of failure, but makes it more > > acceptable. > > I'm still surprised you are seeing failures. mm/slab.c hasn't changed > significantly in a long time. Why hasn't anyone reported this before? I'd > still be inclined to shift the blame to the page allocator... Mel, Christoph? There was a lot of recent fiddling with the reclaim logic. Maybe some of those changes caused the problem?