Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.183]:34476 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753092AbYFLRja (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:39:30 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so2977322waf.23 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240806121039o376b0a8sdfaacf3a1f4a9e57@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080612_193933_117727_FB889CB7) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:39:27 +0300 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: Problem: Out of memory after 2days with 2GB RAM Cc: "Rik van Riel" , "Zdenek Kabelac" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , yi.zhu@intel.com, reinette.chatre@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1213290335.3730.4.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080612093833.0fb9cdd6@bree.surriel.com> <1213278884.3936.15.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240806120843s268b2ff4mb45a11adf11afc7f@mail.gmail.com> <1ba2fa240806120935r54a080eci7fa6fafc718eed17@mail.gmail.com> <1213290335.3730.4.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> > Probably. it would be safe to use vmalloc for allocating txb anyway. >> > I'll give it a try. >> >> So vmalloc didn't break anything on the 32bit machine I'm just about >> to install 64 one so it will take hour or two.. I will issue some >> official patch after that. > > Well, I disagree, and I'll push my patch as soon as somebody confirms > that it doesn't break anything. Remember you are not a maintainer of this driver and second we are open to all suggestions you don't have to use this kind of statements... > >> > There was already discussion on LKML about memory allocation problems >> > on X86_64, which might explain this regression. This didn't happen >> > before. >> >> This is the thread title if you are interested. >> 'x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY' > > Like I said, it doesn't matter, there's no need to _waste_ > 18*256*sizeof(void *) bytes memory. It does matter this is not pci allocation we are saving in your patch. > johannes >