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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0910281353180.19210@sebohet.brgvxre.pu>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:55:26 +0100 (CET)
From:	Tobi Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>
To:	Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>
cc:	Mel LKML <mel.lkml@...il.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
	"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

 Today 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 have been testing 1+2,1+2+3 as well as 3+4 and have been of the
assumption that 3+4 does help ... I have now been runing a modified
version of 4 which prints a warning instead of doing anything ... I
have now seen the allocation issue again without the warning being
printed. So in other words

1+2+3 make the problem less severe, but do not solve it
4 seems to be a red hering.

cheers
tobi


-- 
Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland
http://it.oetiker.ch tobi@...iker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900
--
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/