From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE67B6B0044 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:14:11 -0500 (EST) From: Frans Pop Subject: Re: Page alloc problems with 2.6.32-rc kernels Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:14:07 +0100 References: <20091102122010.GA5552@gibson.comsick.at> In-Reply-To: <20091102122010.GA5552@gibson.comsick.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200911040114.08879.elendil@planet.nl> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Michael Guntsche Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman , KOSAKI Motohiro , Pekka Enberg , Andrew Morton List-ID: Adding a few more CCs. On Monday 02 November 2009, Michael Guntsche wrote: > > I have the server running with all with patches applied and it runs > > without any issues. Since adding patch5 seems to make a difference I > > will revert 1-4 and only apply patch 5 to see if it work too. I will > > report back as soon as I have news. > > Current status of my tests here. With only patch 5 applied (the revert) > I am not able to reproduce the problem. Reading through the ml archives > I noticed that this revert is somewhat controversial since it seems to > fix other bugs. Is it possible that reverting those fixes just hide the > bug I am seeing instead of fixing it? Thanks Michael. That means we now have two cases where reverting the congestion_wait() changes from .31-rc3 (8aa7e847d8 + 373c0a7ed3) makes a clear and significant difference. I wonder if more effort could/should be made on this aspect. Cheers, FJP -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org