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

[Tobi Oetiker]

 Today 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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 have been testing 1+2,1+2+3 as well as 3+4 and have been of the
assumption that 3+4 does help ... I have now been runing a modified
version of 4 which prints a warning instead of doing anything ... I
have now seen the allocation issue again without the warning being
printed. So in other words

1+2+3 make the problem less severe, but do not solve it
4 seems to be a red hering.

cheers
tobi


-- 
Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland
http://it.oetiker.ch tobi@xxxxxxxxxx ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/