Andrew Morton wrote: > > Well.. order-1 GFP_ATOMIC allocations are unreliable. The networking > code should hanlde the situation and recover. I assume that is > happening in this case? Yes, the driver has recovered in all cases so far. > Perhaps we did something in that code after 2.6.29 which increased the > frequency of the order-1 allocation attempts? Maybe earlier kernels > used order-0 all the time? Those are much more reliable. I think something happened to change the allocation as I never saw these O(1) failures before with these particular drivers. I put in a few test printk's and the buffers were 700-800 bytes long, and I would not expect them to require more than an O(0) allocation. I pushed 2.6.30-rc6 hard for ~12 hours without any recurrence of the problem. Given the relative infrequency of the error, this certainly does not indicate a fix in recent code. I will be trying to force it again. Larry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
