linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures in iwlagn

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:41:59 +0200
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	reinette chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
	"Abbas, Mohamed" <mohamed.abbas@...el.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures in iwlagn

On Thursday 15 October 2009, reinette chatre wrote:
> > The log file timestamps don't tell much as the logging gets delayed,
> > so they all end up at the same time. Maybe I should enable the kernel
> > timestamps so we can see how far apart these failures are.
>
> If you can get accurate timing it will be very useful. I am interested
> to see how quickly it goes from "48 free buffers" to "0 free buffers".

Attached the dmesg for three consecutive test runs (i.e. without 
rebooting). Not that the 2nd one includes only "0 free buffers" messages, 
even though the behavior (point where desktop freezes and music stops) 
looked similar.

Not sure if you can tell all that much from the data.

N.B. You may want to clean this up in iwlwifi code:
iwl-dev.h:#include "iwl-fh.h"
iwl-dev.h:#define RX_LOW_WATERMARK 8
iwl-fh.h:#define RX_LOW_WATERMARK 8

I.e: RX_LOW_WATERMARK is defined in iwl-dev.h even though that includes 
iwl-fh.h where it's also defined. The same may be true for other defines.

I think this gave me an incorrect result the first time I increased the 
limit as I only changed one of the two files (iwl-dev.h IIRC).

Cheers,
FJP

Download attachment "dmesg.tgz" of type "application/x-tgz" (44980 bytes)