Subject: Re: ipw2200: firmware DMA loading rework
From: Simon Kitching <simon.kitching@chello.at>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Zhu Yi <yi.zhu@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@skynet.ie>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	James Ketrenos <jketreno@linux.intel.com>,
	"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<ipw2100-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090908110041.GE28127@csn.ul.ie>
References: <riPp5fx5ECC.A.2IG.qsGlKB@chimera>
	 <1251430951.3704.181.camel@debian> <200908301437.42133.bzolnier@gmail.com>
	 <200909021948.13262.bzolnier@gmail.com>
	 <43e72e890909021102g7f844c79xefccf305f5f5c5b6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090903124913.GA26110@csn.ul.ie> <20090905142837.GI16217@mit.edu>
	 <20090908110041.GE28127@csn.ul.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:39:26 +0200
Message-Id: <1252442366.9812.3.camel@simon-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 12:00 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:28:37AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:49:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > This looks very similar to the kmemleak ext4 reports upon a mount. If
> > > > it is the same issue, which from the trace it seems it is, then this
> > > > is due to an extra kmalloc() allocation and this apparently will not
> > > > get fixed on 2.6.31 due to the closeness of the merge window and the
> > > > non-criticalness this issue has been deemed.
> > 
> > No, it's a different problem.
> > 
> > > I suspect the more pressing concern is why is this kmalloc() resulting in
> > > an order-5 allocation request? What size is the buffer being requested?
> > > Was that expected?  What is the contents of /proc/slabinfo in case a buffer
> > > that should have required order-1 or order-2 is using a higher order for
> > > some reason.
> > 
> > It's allocating 68,000 bytes for the mb_history structure, which is
> > used for debugging purposes.  That's why it's optional and we continue
> > if it's not allocated.  We should fix it to use vmalloc()
> 
> You could call with kmalloc(FLAGS|GFP_NOWARN) with a fallback to
> vmalloc() and a disable if vmalloc() fails as well.  Maybe check out what
> kernel/profile.c#profile_init() to allocate a large buffer and do something
> similar?
> 
> > and I'm
> > inclined to turn it off by default since it's not worth the overhead,
> > and most ext4 users won't find it useful or interesting.
> > 
> 
> I can't comment as I don't know what sort of debugging it's useful for.
> 

Perhaps this is a suitable use for the new proposed flex_array? From an
initial glance, I can't see why the allocated memory has to be
contiguous..

http://lwn.net/Articles/345273/

Cheers, Simon