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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:51:39 +0100 From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> To: Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch> Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, 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>, Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>, Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>, Mohamed Abbas <mohamed.abbas@...el.com>, "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures (generic) On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 01:44:50PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > Hi Mel, > > Today Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:17:06PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121600] [<ffffffff813ebd42>] skb_copy+0x32/0xa0 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121615] [<ffffffffa07dd33c>] vboxNetFltLinuxPacketHandler+0x5c/0xd0 [vboxnetflt] [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 22:09:52 johan kernel: [11157.121620] [<ffffffff813f2512>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x142/0x320 [kern.warning] > > > > Are the number of failures at least reduced or are they occuring at the > > same rate? > > not that it would have any statistical significance, but I had 5 > failure (clusters) yesterday morning and 5 this morning ... > Before the patches were applied, how many failures were you seeing in the morning? > the failures often show up in groups I saved one on > http://tobi.oetiker.ch/cluster-2009-10-20-08-31.txt > > > Also, what was the last kernel that worked for you with this > > configuration? > > that would be 2.6.24 ... I have not upgraded in quite some time. > But since the io performance of 2.6.31 is about double in my tests > I thought it would be a good thing todo ... > That significant a different in performance may explain differences in timing as well. i.e. the allocator is being put under more pressure now than it was previously as more processes make forward progress. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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