Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753978Ab0A2R16 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:27:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752316Ab0A2R15 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:27:57 -0500 Received: from mk-filter-1-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.100.52]:60398 "EHLO mk-filter-1-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752161Ab0A2R15 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:27:57 -0500 X-Trace: 336164763/mk-filter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.69.93.110/None/hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 79.69.93.110 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtwAAPeoYktPRV1u/2dsb2JhbAAI2kCEQgQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,369,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="336164763" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:27:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@sister.anvils To: Mel Gorman cc: Mark Lord , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: 2.6.32.5 regression: page allocation failure. order:1, In-Reply-To: <20100129154653.GJ7139@csn.ul.ie> Message-ID: References: <4B5FA147.5040802@teksavvy.com> <4B610FDA.50104@teksavvy.com> <4B6113C7.201@teksavvy.com> <201001281152.20352.rjw@sisk.pl> <4B61964F.6060307@teksavvy.com> <4B619C6D.9030205@teksavvy.com> <20100128142437.GA7139@csn.ul.ie> <4B62E904.9020401@teksavvy.com> <20100129154653.GJ7139@csn.ul.ie> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1486 Lines: 35 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:56:20AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: > > > I'll leave it running for another day or so, and then perhaps revert > > the one patch to see which of the two things (new kernel, or patch) > > is responsible for the difference. > > > > Thanks, I'd appreciate it. While I'm reasonably confident the problem is > with MIGRATE_RESERVE not being free as intended and that the patch fixes > it, I'd like more proof. You're more confident about that than I am! It will be very satisfying if my patch turns out to make the difference, but still surprising to me. Thank you for taking the time on this, Mark: I too would appreciate it if you could later determine whether it's new kernel or patch solving it. > > Hugh, can I get a signed-off-by on that patch please? I can improve the > changelog if you like and send it to Andrew for merging if you like. I was adjusting the changelog and about to send direct to Linus Cc stable in a few minutes, since I'm guessing there might be a 33-rc6 today, which would be a pity to miss. Whatever my reluctance to assume it's the fix to Mark's problem (which I'm not mentioning in the changelog), we are both sure it's a valid bugfix. Hugh -- 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/