[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910061223.04293.elendil@planet.nl>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:23:01 +0200
From: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, "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>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures in iwlagn
On Tuesday 06 October 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> > And the winner is:
> > 2ff05b2b4eac2e63d345fc731ea151a060247f53 is first bad commit
> > commit 2ff05b2b4eac2e63d345fc731ea151a060247f53
> > Author: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> > Date: Tue Jun 16 15:32:56 2009 -0700
> >
> > oom: move oom_adj value from task_struct to mm_struct
> >
> > I'm confident that the bisection is good. The test case was very
> > reliable while zooming in on the merge from akpm.
>
> I doubt it for two reasons: (i) this commit was reverted in 0753ba0
> since 2.6.31-rc7 and is no longer in the kernel, and (ii) these are
> GFP_ATOMIC allocations which would be unaffected by oom killer scores.
OK. Looks like I have been getting some false "good" results. I've been
redoing part of the bisect and am getting close to a new candidate. Will
explain further when I have that.
Cheers,
FJP
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists