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

[Richard Farina <sidhayn@gmail.com>]

reinette chatre wrote:
> 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 dunno, I really don't. but I did just verify the patch and it is 
correct and applied.

Thanks,
Rick
> I am very confused now.
>
> Reinette
>
>
>
>