Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "dbavatar".
Did you mean:
avatar
2014 Jan 03
0
[PATCH net-next 1/3] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 16:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>>
>> My suggestion is to use a recent kernel, and/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
2014 Jan 08
0
[PATCH net-next v2 1/4] net: allow > 0 order atomic page alloc in skb_page_frag_refill
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 21:18 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:26:03AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 20:08 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> >
>> > > Eric said we also need a patch to add __GFP_NORETRY, right?
>>
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()
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
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