Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch (was: aic7xxx with 2.4.9 on 7899P)

Sven Heinicke
2001-08-22T16:09:33Z

I tried you patch below, to compile I had to edit like 2451 of
buffer.c, after the patch to be "page->zone" instead of "page-zone".
After that the build want great. But part of the way through running
bonnie++ the system crashed in a way that it didn't write anything to
the sylog. The terminal was spewing:

APIC error on CPU0: 0c(0c)
APIC error on CPU1: 0c(0c)

I've really gotta put that system back into production. As it seems
much better off before the I started this thread with the 2.4.8-ac8
kernel.

Sven

Marcelo Tosatti writes:
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Sven Heinicke wrote:
>
> >
> > Forgive the sin of replying to my own message but Daniel Phillips
> > replied to a different message with a patch to somebody getting a
> > similar error to mine. Here is the result:
> >
> > Aug 20 15:10:33 ps1 kernel: cation failed (gfp=0x30/1).
> > Aug 20 15:10:33 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> > (gfp=0x30/1).
> > Aug 20 15:10:46 ps1 last message repeated 327 times
> > Aug 20 15:10:47 ps1 kernel: cation failed (gfp=0x30/1).
> > Aug 20 15:10:47 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> > (gfp=0x30/1).
> > Aug 20 15:10:56 ps1 last message repeated 294 times
> >
> >
> > Sven Heinicke writes:
> > >
> > > It's always a blessing and a curse when people seem to be haveing
> > > problems with the same drivers as you. I started looking into this
> > > when I user complained about disk access time. I think this is
> > > related to the running aic7xxx topics.
> > >
> > > From my tests, I got a Dell 4400 who's Adaptec 7899P, according to
> > > bonnie++, was writing slower then some of my my IDE drives on a
> > > different system. I tried Red Hat's 2.4.3-12smp kernel and got a
> > > little improvement. I then built 2.4.9 and started running bonnie++
> > > again and my syslog gets filled up with such errors:
> > >
> > > Aug 20 14:23:33 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order all
> > > Aug 20 14:23:36 ps1 last message repeated 376 times
> > > Aug 20 14:23:36 ps1 kernel: ed.
> > > Aug 20 14:23:36 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order all
> > > Aug 20 14:23:44 ps1 last message repeated 376 times
> > > Aug 20 14:23:44 ps1 kernel: ed.
> > > Aug 20 14:23:44 ps1 kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order all
> > > Aug 20 14:23:44 ps1 last message repeated 363 times
> > >
> > > With slow access time. Please request more info if you think it might
> > > help.
>
> Sven,
>
> Could you please try the following patch on top of 2.4.9?
>
> diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/fs/buffer.c linux/fs/buffer.c
> --- linux.orig/fs/buffer.c Wed Aug 15 18:25:49 2001
> +++ linux/fs/buffer.c Tue Aug 21 04:54:01 2001
> @@ -2447,7 +2447,8 @@
> spin_unlock(&free_list[index].lock);
> write_unlock(&hash_table_lock);
> spin_unlock(&lru_list_lock);
> - if (gfp_mask & __GFP_IO) {
> + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_IO || (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOBOUNCE)
> + && page-zone == &pgdat_list->node_zones[ZONE_HIGHMEM]) {
> sync_page_buffers(bh, gfp_mask);
> /* We waited synchronously, so we can free the buffers. */
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) {
> diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/include/linux/mm.h linux/include/linux/mm.h
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/mm.h Wed Aug 15 18:21:11 2001
> +++ linux/include/linux/mm.h Tue Aug 21 04:52:08 2001
> @@ -538,6 +538,8 @@
> #define __GFP_HIGH 0x20 /* Should access emergency pools? */
> #define __GFP_IO 0x40 /* Can start physical IO? */
> #define __GFP_FS 0x80 /* Can call down to low-level FS? */
> +#define __GFP_NOBOUNCE 0x100 /* Don't do any IO operation which may
> + result in IO bouncing */
>
> #define GFP_NOIO (__GFP_HIGH | __GFP_WAIT)
> #define GFP_NOFS (__GFP_HIGH | __GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO)
> diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/include/linux/slab.h linux/include/linux/slab.h
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/slab.h Wed Aug 15 18:21:13 2001
> +++ linux/include/linux/slab.h Tue Aug 21 04:51:20 2001
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> #define SLAB_NFS GFP_NFS
> #define SLAB_DMA GFP_DMA
>
> -#define SLAB_LEVEL_MASK (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS)
> +#define SLAB_LEVEL_MASK (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_HIGH|__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOBOUNCE)
> #define SLAB_NO_GROW 0x00001000UL /* don't grow a cache */
>
> /* flags to pass to kmem_cache_create().
> diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/mm/highmem.c linux/mm/highmem.c
> --- linux.orig/mm/highmem.c Thu Aug 16 13:42:45 2001
> +++ linux/mm/highmem.c Tue Aug 21 04:50:08 2001
> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@
> struct page *page;
>
> repeat_alloc:
> - page = alloc_page(GFP_NOIO);
> + page = alloc_page(GFP_NOIO|__GFP_NOBOUNCE);
> if (page)
> return page;
> /*
> @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@
> struct buffer_head *bh;
>
> repeat_alloc:
> - bh = kmem_cache_alloc(bh_cachep, SLAB_NOIO);
> + bh = kmem_cache_alloc(bh_cachep, SLAB_NOIO|__GFP_NOBOUNCE);
> if (bh)
> return bh;
> /*
> diff -Nur --exclude-from=exclude linux.orig/mm/page_alloc.c linux/mm/page_alloc.c
> --- linux.orig/mm/page_alloc.c Thu Aug 16 13:43:02 2001
> +++ linux/mm/page_alloc.c Tue Aug 21 04:51:03 2001
> @@ -398,7 +398,8 @@
> * - we're /really/ tight on memory
> * --> try to free pages ourselves with page_launder
> */
> - if (!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)) {
> + if (!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
> + || ((gfp_mask & __GFP_NOBOUNCE) && !order)) {
> /*
> * Are we dealing with a higher order allocation?
> *
>