Hi Rik,
A simple test seems to show problems with page allocator.
a) take a 6G RAM machine
b) take a 70G harddisk
c) mke2fs on it
observe lots of "0-order allocation failures" while looking at
/proc/meminfo reveals that I still have 5.1G of free memory (presumably
some of it in NORMAL zone, n
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:42:17PM -0800, Dunlap, Randy wrote:
> > > Is this bug in the usb-driver (usb-uhci), in the camera's driver
> > > (cpia_usb) or in the v4l?
> > ~~
> > Could there be a memory leak as well? But I e
"Pasi Kärkkäinen" wrote:
>
> I added show_stack(0); to the mm/page_alloc.c :
>
> /* No luck.. */
> printk(KERN_ERR "__alloc_pages: %lu-order allocation failed.\n", order)
> show_stack(0);
> return NULL;
>
> Then, when the first stack-dump came to kern.log, I gave
Rik van Riel; Forever shall I be.;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 3-order allocation failed
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:42:17PM -0800, Dunlap, Randy wrote:
> > > Is this bug in the usb-driver (usb-uhci), in the camera's driver
> > > (cpia_usb) or in t
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:42:17PM -0800, Dunlap, Randy wrote:
> > Is this bug in the usb-driver (usb-uhci), in the camera's driver
> > (cpia_usb) or in the v4l?
> ~~
> Could there be a memory leak as well? But I expect that
> it's simply that memory is just fragme
Hi,
> From: Pasi Kärkkäinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Forever shall I be. wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:57:30PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> >
> > > > __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> > > > __alloc
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Forever shall I be. wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:57:30PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>
> > > __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> > > __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> > > __alloc_pages: 5-order allocati
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Forever shall I be. wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:57:30PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>
> > > __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> > > __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> > > __alloc_pages: 5-order allocati
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Forever shall I be. wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:57:30PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> > __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> > __alloc_pages: 5-order allocation failed.
> > __alloc_pages: 4-order allocation failed
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:57:30PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > "Pasi Kärkkäinen" wrote:
> >
> > gcc-2.7.2.3 miscompiles kernel/module.c and it has been decided that
> > this will not be worked around. The new baseline gcc release for x86
> >
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 23:52:02 +1100,
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[ You could put a show_stack(0) in here, but I believe ksymoops
> doesn't understand show_stack() output ].
It does, and extracts the "Call Trace:" data. The stack is not printed
by ksymoops because it does not have
"Pasi Kärkkäinen" wrote:
>
> Ok. I recompiled the kernel and modules with 2.95.2 and it still seems not
> to work. This is from syslog:
>
> __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed.
> __alloc_pages: 5-order allocation failed.
> __alloc_pages: 4-order a
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Pasi Kärkkäinen" wrote:
> >
> > I'm using 2.4.0-test10-pre5 on a PIII (compiled with gcc 2.7.2.3) and
> > ...
>
> gcc-2.7.2.3 miscompiles kernel/module.c and it has been decided that
> this will not be worked around. The new baseline gcc release fo
"Pasi Kärkkäinen" wrote:
>
> I'm using 2.4.0-test10-pre5 on a PIII (compiled with gcc 2.7.2.3) and
> ...
gcc-2.7.2.3 miscompiles kernel/module.c and it has been decided that
this will not be worked around. The new baseline gcc release for x86
is gcc-2.91.66 (otherwise known as egcs-1.1.2).
-
To
14 matches
Mail list logo
