Re: intel 5100/iwlagn bug in 2.6.35-rc2 during large file transfer

[reinette chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>]

On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 10:14 -0700, Richard Farina wrote:
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c |    5 +++--
> >  drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-fh.h      |    2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
> > index 0f292a2..2815ee7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
> > @@ -613,7 +613,8 @@ void iwlagn_rx_allocate(struct iwl_priv *priv, gfp_t priority)
> >               }
> >               spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rxq->lock, flags);
> >
> > -             if (rxq->free_count > RX_LOW_WATERMARK)
> > +             if ((priority == GFP_ATOMIC) ||
> > +                 (rxq->free_count > RX_LOW_WATERMARK / 4))
> >                       gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> >

Here I set the allocation mask to not print _any_ warnings when
allocation is atomic ...


> [180257.090410] swapper: page allocation failure. order:1, mode:0x4020
> [180257.090414] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.34-pentoo-r2 #2
> [180257.090416] Call Trace:

... clearly this is an allocation warning ...

> [180257.090418]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff810984c0>]
> __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x571/0x5b9
> [180257.090437]  [<ffffffffa05162f3>] iwlagn_rx_allocate+0x98/0x2e0 [iwlagn]
> [180257.090445]  [<ffffffffa051668c>] iwlagn_rx_replenish_now+0x16/0x23
> [iwlagn]

... but it is an atomic one, which after the patch should not be
printing _any_ warning ...

I am very confused now.

Reinette