[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091023165810.GA4588@bizet.domek.prywatny>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:58:10 +0200
From: Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@....fi>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mohamed Abbas <mohamed.abbas@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC
failures V2
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:22:31PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
[Cut everything but my bug]
> [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> Karol Lewandows reported that e100 fails to allocate order-5
> GFP_ATOMIC when loading firmware during resume. This has started
> happening relatively recent.
> Test 1: Verify your problem occurs on 2.6.32-rc5 if you can
Yes, bug is still there.
> Test 2: Apply the following two patches and test again
>
> 1/5 page allocator: Always wake kswapd when restarting an allocation attempt after direct reclaim failed
> 2/5 page allocator: Do not allow interrupts to use ALLOC_HARDER
>
>
> These patches correct problems introduced by me during the 2.6.31-rc1
> merge window. The patches were not meant to introduce any functional
> changes but two were missed.
>
> If your problem goes away with just these two patches applied,
> please tell me.
Likewise.
> Test 3: If you are getting allocation failures, try with the following patch
>
> 3/5 vmscan: Force kswapd to take notice faster when high-order watermarks are being hit
>
> This is a functional change that causes kswapd to notice sooner
> when high-order watermarks have been hit. There have been a number
> of changes in page reclaim since 2.6.30 that might have delayed
> when kswapd kicks in for higher orders
>
> If your problem goes away with these three patches applied, please
> tell me
No, problem doesn't go away with these patches (1+2+3). However, from
my testing this particular patch makes it way, way harder to trigger
allocation failures (but these are still present).
This bothers me - should I test following patches with or without
above patch? This patch makes bug harder to find, IMVHO it doesn't
fix the real problem.
(Rest not tested yet.)
Thanks.
--
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