Messages in this thread |  | | From | Sven Heinicke <> | Date | Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:09:12 -0400 (EDT) | Subject | Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch (was: aic7xxx with 2.4.9 on 7899P) |
| |
I tried you patch below, to compile I had to edit like 2451 of buffer.c, after the patch to be "page->zone" instead of "page-zone". After that the build want great. But part of the way through running bonnie++ the system crashed in a way that it didn't write anything to the sylog. The terminal was spewing:
APIC error on CPU0: 0c(0c) APIC error on CPU1: 0c(0c)
I've really gotta put that system back into production. As it seems much better off before the I started this thread with the 2.4.8-ac8 kernel.
Sven
Marcelo Tosatti writes: > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Sven Heinicke wrote: > > > > > Forgive the sin of replying to my own message but Daniel Phillips > > replied to a different message with a patch to somebody getting a > > similar error to mine. Here is the result: > > > > Aug 20 15:10:33 ps1 kernel: cation failed (gfp=0x30/1). > > Aug 20 15:10:33 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed > > (gfp=0x30/1). > > Aug 20 15:10:46 ps1 last message repeated 327 times > > Aug 20 15:10:47 ps1 kernel: cation failed (gfp=0x30/1). > > Aug 20 15:10:47 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed > > (gfp=0x30/1). > > Aug 20 15:10:56 ps1 last message repeated 294 times > > > > > > Sven Heinicke writes: > > > > > > It's always a blessing and a curse when people seem to be haveing > > > problems with the same drivers as you. I started looking into this > > > when I user complained about disk access time. I think this is > > > related to the running aic7xxx topics. > > > > > > From my tests, I got a Dell 4400 who's Adaptec 7899P, according to > > > bonnie++, was writing slower then some of my my IDE drives on a > > > different system. I tried Red Hat's 2.4.3-12smp kernel and got a > > > little improvement. I then built 2.4.9 and started running bonnie++ > > > again and my syslog gets filled up with such errors: > > > > > > Aug 20 14:23:33 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order all > > > Aug 20 14:23:36 ps1 last message repeated 376 times > > > Aug 20 14:23:36 ps1 kernel: ed. > > > Aug 20 14:23:36 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order all > > > Aug 20 14:23:44 ps1 last message repeated 376 times > > > Aug 20 14:23:44 ps1 kernel: ed. > > > Aug 20 14:23:44 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order all > > > Aug 20 14:23:44 ps1 last message repeated 363 times > > > > > > With slow access time. Please request more info if you think it might > > > help. > > Sven, > > Could you please try the following patch on top of 2.4.9? > > diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/fs/buffer.c linux/fs/buffer.c > --- linux.orig/fs/buffer.c Wed Aug 15 18:25:49 2001 > +++ linux/fs/buffer.c Tue Aug 21 04:54:01 2001 > @@ -2447,7 +2447,8 @@ > spin_unlock(&free_list[index].lock); > write_unlock(&hash_table_lock); > spin_unlock(&lru_list_lock); > - if (gfp_mask & __GFP_IO) { > + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_IO || (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOBOUNCE) > + && page-zone == &pgdat_list->node_zones[ZONE_HIGHMEM]) { > sync_page_buffers(bh, gfp_mask); > /* We waited synchronously, so we can free the buffers. */ > if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) { > diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/include/linux/mm.h linux/include/linux/mm.h > --- linux.orig/include/linux/mm.h Wed Aug 15 18:21:11 2001 > +++ linux/include/linux/mm.h Tue Aug 21 04:52:08 2001 > @@ -538,6 +538,8 @@ > #define __GFP_HIGH 0x20 /* Should access emergency pools? */ > #define __GFP_IO 0x40 /* Can start physical IO? */ > #define __GFP_FS 0x80 /* Can call down to low-level FS? */ > +#define __GFP_NOBOUNCE 0x100 /* Don't do any IO operation which may > + result in IO bouncing */ > > #define GFP_NOIO (__GFP_HIGH | __GFP_WAIT) > #define GFP_NOFS (__GFP_HIGH | __GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO) > diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/include/linux/slab.h linux/include/linux/slab.h > --- linux.orig/include/linux/slab.h Wed Aug 15 18:21:13 2001 > +++ linux/include/linux/slab.h Tue Aug 21 04:51:20 2001 > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ > #define SLAB_NFS GFP_NFS > #define SLAB_DMA GFP_DMA > > -#define SLAB_LEVEL_MASK (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS) > +#define SLAB_LEVEL_MASK (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOBOUNCE) > #define SLAB_NO_GROW 0x00001000UL /* don't grow a cache */ > > /* flags to pass to kmem_cache_create(). > diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/mm/highmem.c linux/mm/highmem.c > --- linux.orig/mm/highmem.c Thu Aug 16 13:42:45 2001 > +++ linux/mm/highmem.c Tue Aug 21 04:50:08 2001 > @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ > struct page *page; > > repeat_alloc: > - page = alloc_page(GFP_NOIO); > + page = alloc_page(GFP_NOIO|__GFP_NOBOUNCE); > if (page) > return page; > /* > @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ > struct buffer_head *bh; > > repeat_alloc: > - bh = kmem_cache_alloc(bh_cachep, SLAB_NOIO); > + bh = kmem_cache_alloc(bh_cachep, SLAB_NOIO|__GFP_NOBOUNCE); > if (bh) > return bh; > /* > diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/mm/page_alloc.c linux/mm/page_alloc.c > --- linux.orig/mm/page_alloc.c Thu Aug 16 13:43:02 2001 > +++ linux/mm/page_alloc.c Tue Aug 21 04:51:03 2001 > @@ -398,7 +398,8 @@ > * - we're /really/ tight on memory > * --> try to free pages ourselves with page_launder > */ > - if (!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)) { > + if (!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) > + || ((gfp_mask & __GFP_NOBOUNCE) && !order)) { > /* > * Are we dealing with a higher order allocation? > * > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |