[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252442366.9812.3.camel@simon-laptop>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:39:26 +0200
From: Simon Kitching <simon.kitching@...llo.at>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Zhu Yi <yi.zhu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
James Ketrenos <jketreno@...ux.intel.com>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"ipw2100-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<ipw2100-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: ipw2200: firmware DMA loading rework
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 12:00 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:28:37AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:49:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This looks very similar to the kmemleak ext4 reports upon a mount. If
> > > > it is the same issue, which from the trace it seems it is, then this
> > > > is due to an extra kmalloc() allocation and this apparently will not
> > > > get fixed on 2.6.31 due to the closeness of the merge window and the
> > > > non-criticalness this issue has been deemed.
> >
> > No, it's a different problem.
> >
> > > I suspect the more pressing concern is why is this kmalloc() resulting in
> > > an order-5 allocation request? What size is the buffer being requested?
> > > Was that expected? What is the contents of /proc/slabinfo in case a buffer
> > > that should have required order-1 or order-2 is using a higher order for
> > > some reason.
> >
> > It's allocating 68,000 bytes for the mb_history structure, which is
> > used for debugging purposes. That's why it's optional and we continue
> > if it's not allocated. We should fix it to use vmalloc()
>
> You could call with kmalloc(FLAGS|GFP_NOWARN) with a fallback to
> vmalloc() and a disable if vmalloc() fails as well. Maybe check out what
> kernel/profile.c#profile_init() to allocate a large buffer and do something
> similar?
>
> > and I'm
> > inclined to turn it off by default since it's not worth the overhead,
> > and most ext4 users won't find it useful or interesting.
> >
>
> I can't comment as I don't know what sort of debugging it's useful for.
>
Perhaps this is a suitable use for the new proposed flex_array? From an
initial glance, I can't see why the allocated memory has to be
contiguous..
http://lwn.net/Articles/345273/
Cheers, Simon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists