From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:46:12 -0700 Message-ID: <20080328104612.2641fb74.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <200803272353.51901.rjw@sisk.pl> <47ECCD17.7080908@artcom.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Christoph Lameter , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , LKML , Adrian Bunk , Natalie Protasevich , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pawe=C5=82?= Staszewski Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47ECCD17.7080908@artcom.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:48:55 +0100 Pawe__ Staszewski wrote: > Linus Torvalds pisze: > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > >> Slab allocations can never use GFP_HIGHMEM. > >> > > > > Totally irrelevant. > > > > The page allocation path does > > > > if (gfp_flags & __GFP_ZERO) > > prep_zero_page(page, order, gfp_flags); > > > > and that will cause a warning REGARDLESS of whether the page is a HIGHMEM > > page or not. > > > > And the fact is, passing in GFP_ZERO from the SLUB code is a bug > > regardless, because it unnecessarily does the dual memset(). > > > > So here's a damn big clue: > > - SLUB does its own GFP_ZERO handling > > - so passing GFP_ZERO down to the page allocator is a f*cking bug > > - and this has NOTHING what-so-ever to do with GFP_HIGHMEM or even > > whether the warning is "valid" or not - it's a bug even if the warning > > had never happened. > > > > So stop blathering, and just admit that this was buggy. It was also > > fundamentally fragile to leave GFP_ZERO around when it was known to not be > > valid at that point (exactly because GFP_ZERO was handled by the caller). > > > > Linus > > > > > > > Sorry for offtopic but i have the same problem with kernels 2.6.25-* > like: > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2008/3/27/1274804 > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2008/3/27/1270334 > > I search linux-netdev and found this links. > I only sugest that > > Denys Fedoryshchenko > > can have the same problem that i have with this kernels. > I must revert my all kernels to 2.6.23.11 to get stable work on high (ip > traffic) loads. > > And there is no documentation for LRO... and Stephen Hemminger write me > that LRO is not compatible with bridgeing and routing. > see this link: > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10335 > > > So there must be some documentation for this ... because people can have > many problems with this. > These are all networking things, so let's cc that list. > > Sorry for offtopic but this can resolve problems like my and Denys . It's very on-topic - thanks for the reminder. Rafael, are these things actually on the list?