On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 04:02:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14265
> Subject : ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5,
> mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> Submitter : Karol Lewandowski
> Date : 2
ween 2.6.30 and 2.6.31. Please verify if it still should
> be listed and let me know (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14265
> Subject : ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5,
> mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> Submi
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 01:08:45PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:52:58AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 01:07:21PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> > > total used free sharedbuffers
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 09:52:58AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 01:07:21PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> > total used free sharedbuffers cached
> > Mem:255240 194052 61188 0
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:30:30PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> Patches 1-3 should be tested first. The testing I've done shows that the
> page allocator and behaviour of congestion_wait() is more in line with
> 2.6.30 t
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 08:30:34PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Does applying the following on top make any difference?
>
> CUT HERE
> PM: Shrink memory before suspend
No, this patch didn't change anything either.
IIRC I get failures while free(1) shows as much as 20MB free RAM
(ie. with
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:59:26AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:42:08PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:46:56PM +0100, Mel LKML wrote:
> > I've tested patches 1+2+3+4 in my normal usage scenario (do some work,
> >
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 08:31:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14265
> Subject : ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5,
> mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> Submitter : Karol Lewandowski
> Date : 2
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 01:40:30PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> The following bug becomes very difficult to reproduce with these patches;
>
> [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100
Minor clarification -- bug becomes difficult to reproduce _quickly_.
I've alway
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 pr
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:58:10PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:22:31PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Test 3: If you are getting allocation failures, try with the following patch
> >
> > 3/5 vmscan: Force kswapd to take notice faster when
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:22:31PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
[Cut everything but my bug]
> [Bug #14265] ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> Karol Lewandows reported that e100 fails to allocate order-5
> GFP_ATOMIC when loading firmware during resume. This h
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:20:34PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> > > Note: slub isn't going to be a culprit in order 5 allocation failures
> > > since they have kmalloc passthrough to the page allocator.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 02:06:41PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
>
> > commit d6849591e042bceb66f1b4513a1df6740d2ad762
> > Author: Karol Lewandowski
> > Date: Wed Oct 21 21:01:20 2009 +0200
> >
> > SLUB
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:56:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14265
> Subject : ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5,
> mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> Submitter : Karol Lewandowski
> Date : 2
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 07:09:47PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 03:06:19PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Can you test with my kswapd patch applied and commits 373c0a7e,8aa7e847
> > reverted please?
>
> It seems that your patch and Frans'
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 03:06:19PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Can you test with my kswapd patch applied and commits 373c0a7e,8aa7e847
> reverted please?
It seems that your patch and Frans' reverts together *do* make
difference.
With these patches I haven't been able to trigger failures so far
(in
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:54:11PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 11:49 +0200, Tobi Oetiker wrote:
> > I have updated a fileserver to 2.6.31 today and I see page
> > allocation failures from several parts of the system ... mostly nfs though
> > ... (it is a nfs server).
> > So
ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:5,
> > mode:0x8020 w/ e100
> > Submitter : Karol Lewandowski
> > Date: 2009-09-15 12:05 (27 days old)
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125301636509517&w=4
>
> A 128K memory allocat
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 10:01:43PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 10:32:26AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Apparently, Karol Lewandowski (cc added) has a reliable
> > reproduction case for when the firmware loading problem occurs
> > (http://lkml.o
ystem in a state where the errors occur.
> >
>
> Apparently, Karol Lewandowski (cc added) has a reliable
> reproduction case for when the firmware loading problem occurs
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/30/242). While it's not the same problem exactly,
> it's probable the
21 matches
Mail list logo
