linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP

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]

Message-ID: <20091028115926.GW8900@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:59:26 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>
Cc:	Mel LKML <mel.lkml@...il.com>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
	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 Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:42:08PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:46:56PM +0100, Mel LKML wrote:
> > Hi,
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On 10/23/09, Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:58:10PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> 
> > > Ok, I've tested patches 1+2+4 and bug, while very hard to trigger, is
> > > still present. I'll test complete 1-4 patchset as time permits.
> 
> Sorry for silence, I've been quite busy lately.
> 
> 
> > And also patch 5 please which is the revert. Patch 5 as pointed out is
> > probably a red herring. Hwoever, it has changed the timing and made a
> > difference for some testing so I'd like to know if it helps yours as
> > well.
> 
> I've tested patches 1+2+3+4 in my normal usage scenario (do some work,
> suspend, do work, suspend, ...) and it failed today after 4 days (== 4
> suspend-resume cycles).
> 
> I'll test 1-5 now.
> 

I was digging through commits for suspend-related changes. Rafael, is
there any chance that some change to suspend is responsible for this
regression? This commit for example is a vague possibility;
c6f37f12197ac3bd2e5a35f2f0e195ae63d437de: PM/Suspend: Do not shrink memory before suspend

I say vague because FREE_PAGE_NUMBER is so small.

Also, what was the behaviour of the e100 driver when suspending before
this commit?

6905b1f1a03a48dcf115a2927f7b87dba8d5e566: Net / e100: Fix suspend of devices that cannot be power managed

-- 
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/