Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-25 Thread Ian Kent
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:15 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-25 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-25 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: I'm unclear on how urgent these

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-25 Thread Ian Kent
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:15 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-24 Thread David Rientjes
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens > > > wrote: > > > > > > > These two patches are supposed to

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-24 Thread David Rientjes
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote:

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens > > wrote: > > > > > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory > > > allocations which have been

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-21 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens > wrote: > > > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory > > allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. > > The problem has been observed on

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-21 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-18 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens wrote: > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory > allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. > The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. > > To address the problem change the seq_file

Re: [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-18 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote: These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem

[PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-16 Thread Heiko Carstens
These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also

[PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation

2014-06-16 Thread Heiko Carstens
These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat. The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86. To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also