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 has started > happening relatively recent. > Test 1: Verify your problem occurs on 2.6.32-rc5 if you can Yes, bug is still there. > Test 2: Apply the following two patches and test again > > 1/5 page allocator: Always wake kswapd when restarting an allocation attempt after direct reclaim failed > 2/5 page allocator: Do not allow interrupts to use ALLOC_HARDER > > > These patches correct problems introduced by me during the 2.6.31-rc1 > merge window. The patches were not meant to introduce any functional > changes but two were missed. > > If your problem goes away with just these two patches applied, > please tell me. Likewise. > Test 3: If you are getting allocation failures, try with the following patch > > 3/5 vmscan: Force kswapd to take notice faster when high-order watermarks are being hit > > This is a functional change that causes kswapd to notice sooner > when high-order watermarks have been hit. There have been a number > of changes in page reclaim since 2.6.30 that might have delayed > when kswapd kicks in for higher orders > > If your problem goes away with these three patches applied, please > tell me No, problem doesn't go away with these patches (1+2+3). However, from my testing this particular patch makes it way, way harder to trigger allocation failures (but these are still present). This bothers me - should I test following patches with or without above patch? This patch makes bug harder to find, IMVHO it doesn't fix the real problem. (Rest not tested yet.) Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
