Re: [PATCH 0/5] Candidate fix for increased number of GFP_ATOMIC failures V2

[Mel Gorman <mel-wPRd99KPJ+uzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:42:08PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:46:56PM +0100, Mel LKML wrote:
> > Hi,
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On 10/23/09, Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:58:10PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
> 
> > > Ok, I've tested patches 1+2+4 and bug, while very hard to trigger, is
> > > still present. I'll test complete 1-4 patchset as time permits.
> 
> Sorry for silence, I've been quite busy lately.
> 
> 
> > And also patch 5 please which is the revert. Patch 5 as pointed out is
> > probably a red herring. Hwoever, it has changed the timing and made a
> > difference for some testing so I'd like to know if it helps yours as
> > well.
> 
> I've tested patches 1+2+3+4 in my normal usage scenario (do some work,
> suspend, do work, suspend, ...) and it failed today after 4 days (== 4
> suspend-resume cycles).
> 
> I'll test 1-5 now.
> 

I was digging through commits for suspend-related changes. Rafael, is
there any chance that some change to suspend is responsible for this
regression? This commit for example is a vague possibility;
c6f37f12197ac3bd2e5a35f2f0e195ae63d437de: PM/Suspend: Do not shrink memory before suspend

I say vague because FREE_PAGE_NUMBER is so small.

Also, what was the behaviour of the e100 driver when suspending before
this commit?

6905b1f1a03a48dcf115a2927f7b87dba8d5e566: Net / e100: Fix suspend of devices that cannot be power managed

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab