[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091019141359.GF9036@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:13:59 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
reinette chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@....fi>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Reduce number of GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 08:34:21PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:37:24AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > The following two patches against 2.6.32-rc4 should reduce allocation
> > failure reports for GFP_ATOMIC allocations that have being cropping up
> > since 2.6.31-rc1.
> ...
> > The patches should also help the following bugs as well and testing there
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> >
> > It might also have helped the following bug
>
> These patches actually made situation kind-of "worse" for this
> particular issue.
>
> I've tried patches with post 2.6.32-rc4 kernel and after second
> suspend-resume cycle I got typical "order:5" failure. However, this
> time when I manually tried to bring interface up ("ifup eth0") it
> failed for 4 consecutive times with "Can't allocate memory". Before
> applying these patches this never occured -- kernel sometimes failed
> to allocate memory during resume, but it *never* failed afterwards.
>
I'm hoping the patch + the revert which I asked for in another mail will
help. It's been clear for a while that more than one thing went wrong
during this cycle.
> I'll go now for another round of bisecting... and hopefully this time
> I'll be able to trigger this problem on different/faster computer with
> e100-based card.
>
>
> > although that driver has already been fixed by not making high-order
> > atomic allocations.
>
> Driver has been fixed? The one patch that I saw (by davem[1]) didn't
> fix this issue. As of 2.6.32-rc5 I see no fixes to e100.c in
> mainline, has there been another than this[1] fix posted somewhere?
>
> [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/12/169
>
The driver that was fixed was for the ipw2200, not the e100.
Thanks
--
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 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