From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 610086B004D for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:55:26 +0100 (CET) From: Tobi Oetiker Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC failures V2 In-Reply-To: <20091028114208.GA14476@bizet.domek.prywatny> Message-ID: References: <1256221356-26049-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20091023165810.GA4588@bizet.domek.prywatny> <20091023211239.GA6185@bizet.domek.prywatny> <9ec2d7290910240646p75b93c68v6ea1648d628a9660@mail.gmail.com> <20091028114208.GA14476@bizet.domek.prywatny> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Karol Lewandowski Cc: Mel LKML , Mel Gorman , Frans Pop , Jiri Kosina , Sven Geggus , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , David Miller , Reinette Chatre , Kalle Valo , David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mohamed Abbas , Jens Axboe , "John W. Linville" , Pekka Enberg , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stephan von Krawczynski , Kernel Testers List , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: Today Karol Lewandowski wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:46:56PM +0100, Mel LKML wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi, > > > On 10/23/09, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:58:10PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > > > > Ok, I've tested patches 1+2+4 and bug, while very hard to trigger, is > > > still present. I'll test complete 1-4 patchset as time permits. > > Sorry for silence, I've been quite busy lately. > > > > And also patch 5 please which is the revert. Patch 5 as pointed out is > > probably a red herring. Hwoever, it has changed the timing and made a > > difference for some testing so I'd like to know if it helps yours as > > well. > > I've tested patches 1+2+3+4 in my normal usage scenario (do some work, > suspend, do work, suspend, ...) and it failed today after 4 days (== 4 > suspend-resume cycles). I have been testing 1+2,1+2+3 as well as 3+4 and have been of the assumption that 3+4 does help ... I have now been runing a modified version of 4 which prints a warning instead of doing anything ... I have now seen the allocation issue again without the warning being printed. So in other words 1+2+3 make the problem less severe, but do not solve it 4 seems to be a red hering. cheers tobi -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch tobi@oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 -- 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