Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754579AbZJ0Myw (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:54:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754271AbZJ0Myj (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:54:39 -0400 Received: from Cpsmtpm-eml106.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.10]:55518 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML106.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752913AbZJ0Myg (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:54:36 -0400 From: Frans Pop To: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ONLY-APPLY-IF-STILL-FAILING Revert 373c0a7e, 8aa7e847: Fix congestion_wait() sync/async vs read/write confusion Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:29:01 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Mel Gorman , Jiri Kosina , Sven Geggus , Karol Lewandowski , Tobias Oetiker , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , David Miller , Reinette Chatre , Kalle Valo , David Rientjes , Mohamed Abbas , Jens Axboe , "John W. Linville" , Pekka Enberg , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stephan von Krawczynski , Kernel Testers List , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" References: <1256221356-26049-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1256221356-26049-6-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20091026235628.2F7B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20091026235628.2F7B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200910271129.05586.elendil@planet.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2009 12:54:40.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5D054E0:01CA5704] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2039 Lines: 49 On Tuesday 27 October 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Oops. no, please no. > 8aa7e847 is regression fixing commit. this revert indicate the > regression occur again. > if we really need to revert it, we need to revert 1faa16d2287 too. > however, I doubt this commit really cause regression to iwlan. IOW, > I agree Jens. This is not intended as a patch for mainline, but just as a test to see if it improves things. It may be a regression fix, but it also creates a significant change in behavior during swapping in my test case. If a fix is needed, it will probably by different from this revert. Please read: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/26/510. This mail has some data: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/26/455. > I hope to try reproduce this problem on my test environment. Can anyone > please explain reproduce way? Please see my mails in this thread for bug #14141: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/896714 You will probably need to read some of them to understand the context of the two mails linked above. The most relevant ones are (all from the same thread; not sure why gmane gives such weird links): http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/39909 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.kernel-testers/7228 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.kernel-testers/7165 > Is special hardware necessary? Not special hardware, but you may need an encrypted partition and NFS; the test may need to be modified according to the amount of memory you have. I think it should be possible to reproduce the freezes I see while ignoring the SKB allocation errors as IMO those are just a symptom, not the cause. So you should not need wireless. The severity of the freezes during my test often increases if the test is repeated (without rebooting). Cheers, FJP -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/