Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "5f42a4d70cb2".
2014 Jan 03
2
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
.../or eventually backport the
> mm fixes if any.
>
> order-3 allocations should not reclaim 2GB out of 8GB.
>
> There is a reason PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER exists and is 3
Hmm... it looks like I missed __GFP_NORETRY
diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
index 5393b4b719d7..5f42a4d70cb2 100644
--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -1872,7 +1872,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t prio)
gfp_t gfp = prio;
if (order)
- gfp |= __GFP_COMP | __GFP_NOWARN;
+ gfp |= __GFP_COMP | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY;
pfrag->page...
2014 Jan 03
2
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
.../or eventually backport the
> mm fixes if any.
>
> order-3 allocations should not reclaim 2GB out of 8GB.
>
> There is a reason PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER exists and is 3
Hmm... it looks like I missed __GFP_NORETRY
diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
index 5393b4b719d7..5f42a4d70cb2 100644
--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -1872,7 +1872,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t prio)
gfp_t gfp = prio;
if (order)
- gfp |= __GFP_COMP | __GFP_NOWARN;
+ gfp |= __GFP_COMP | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY;
pfrag->page...
2014 Jan 03
2
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
>> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 16:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> Hmm... it looks like I missed __GFP_NORETRY
>>
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
>> index 5393b4b719d7..5f42a4d70cb2 100644
>> --- a/net/core/sock.c
>> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
>> @@ -1872,7 +1872,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t prio)
>> gfp_t gfp = prio;
>>
>> if (order)
>> -...
2014 Jan 03
2
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
>> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 16:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> Hmm... it looks like I missed __GFP_NORETRY
>>
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
>> index 5393b4b719d7..5f42a4d70cb2 100644
>> --- a/net/core/sock.c
>> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
>> @@ -1872,7 +1872,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t prio)
>> gfp_t gfp = prio;
>>
>> if (order)
>> -...
2014 Jan 03
0
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
...n/reclaim fruitlessly.
I guess this is a bit of a tangent since what I'm saying proves the
patch from Michael doesn't make this behavior worse.
>
> Hmm... it looks like I missed __GFP_NORETRY
>
>
>
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 5393b4b719d7..5f42a4d70cb2 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -1872,7 +1872,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t prio)
> gfp_t gfp = prio;
>
> if (order)
> - gfp |= __GFP_COMP | __GFP_...
2014 Jan 03
0
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
...brata Banerjee wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 16:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmm... it looks like I missed __GFP_NORETRY
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> >> index 5393b4b719d7..5f42a4d70cb2 100644
> >> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> >> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> >> @@ -1872,7 +1872,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t prio)
> >> gfp_t gfp = prio;
> >>
> >> if (order)
&...
2014 Jan 03
2
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
Currently because of how mm behaves (3.10.y) the code even before the
patch is a problem. I believe what may fix it is if instead of just
removing the conditional on __GFP_WAIT, the initial order > 0
allocation should be made GFP_ATOMIC, then fallback to the original
gfp mask for the order-0 allocations.
On systems that have highly fragmented main memory with pressure,
skb_page_frag_refill()
2014 Jan 03
2
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
Currently because of how mm behaves (3.10.y) the code even before the
patch is a problem. I believe what may fix it is if instead of just
removing the conditional on __GFP_WAIT, the initial order > 0
allocation should be made GFP_ATOMIC, then fallback to the original
gfp mask for the order-0 allocations.
On systems that have highly fragmented main memory with pressure,
skb_page_frag_refill()