From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frans Pop Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures in iwlagn Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 12:01:32 +0200 Message-ID: <200910021201.35672.elendil@planet.nl> References: <3onW63eFtRF.A.xXH.oMTxKB@chimera> <200910021111.55749.elendil@planet.nl> <20091002093226.GJ21906@csn.ul.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091002093226.GJ21906-wPRd99KPJ+uzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Mel Gorman Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Pekka Enberg , Reinette Chatre , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Karol Lewandowski On Friday 02 October 2009, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > My own feeling is that Bartlomiej is correct and that something has > > changed since .29 and that on average we do have less higher order > > areas available after the system has been in use for some time, but I > > can't substantiate that. I do know that before .30 I had never seen > > the SKB allocation errors. > > > > Main problem is that it's hard to deliberately and reproducibly get > > the system 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 they're related. I'm hoping the problem commit > can be identified by his bisection whenever he gets around to it. That does indeed look like a third independent report for basically the same issue. > [...], I accept that the problem is apparently occuring more now than it > did so something has changed that is not obvious to normal testing. Cool, that's progress ;-)