lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-19 16:17    [W:0.026 / U:120.352 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site