netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.10-rc1-mm4 -1 EAGAIN after allocation failure was: Re: Kernel 2.

To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.10-rc1-mm4 -1 EAGAIN after allocation failure was: Re: Kernel 2.6.9 Multiple Page Allocation Failures
From: Stefan Schmidt <zaphodb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:48:11 +0100
Cc: Nick Piggin <piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041110085831.GB10740@logos.cnet>
References: <20041109223558.GR1309@mail.muni.cz> <20041109144607.2950a41a.akpm@osdl.org> <20041109235201.GC20754@zaphods.net> <20041110012733.GD20754@zaphods.net> <20041109173920.08746dbd.akpm@osdl.org> <20041110020327.GE20754@zaphods.net> <419197EA.9090809@cyberone.com.au> <20041110102854.GI20754@zaphods.net> <20041110120624.GF28163@zaphods.net> <20041110085831.GB10740@logos.cnet>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 06:58:31AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > Can you try the following patch, please? It is diffed against 
> > > > 2.6.10-rc1,
> > I did. No apparent change with mm4 and vm.min_free_kbytes = 8192. I will try
> > latest bk next.

> > > I set it back to CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP=y and if the application does not 
> > > freeze
> > > for some hours at this load we can blame at least this issue (-1 EAGAIN) 
> > > on
> > > that parameter.
> > Nope, that didn't change anything, still getting EAGAIN, checked two times.
> Its not clear to me - do you have Nick's watermark patch in? 
Yes i have vm.min_free_kbytes=8192 and Nick's patch in mm4. I'll try
rc1-bk19 with his restore-atomic-buffer patch in a few minutes.

        Stefan
-- 
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>