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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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