On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Ankur Tank <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> We are using BeagleBoneBlack based custom Linux board.
> It has 256MB of RAM and 4GB of eMMC.
> Currently RFS size of the project is 163MB. While RFS partition size is
> 500MB.
> For testing, we added 20 number of big files(10MB size) and started
> firmware upgrade process.
>
> During the firmware Upgrade process we see following error when roofs is
> being written,
>
> We could solve it by changing
> /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes
>
> from *2005* to *4096*.
>
> *But now my doubt is what should be the ideal value for that, what factors
> we should consider while calculating it. From the kernel documentation I
> don't get that information, *
> *but I could understand one thing that is this value can not be too low or
> too high or else system will break.*
>
> Any suggestion/pointer ?
>
>     [ 6676.674219] mmcqd/1: page allocation failure: order:1, mode:
> 0x200020
>     [ 6676.674256] CPU: 0 PID: 612 Comm: mmcqd/1 Tainted: P           O
> 3.12.10-005-ts-armv7l #2
>     [ 6676.674321] [<c0012d24>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf4) from [<
> c0011130>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
>     [ 6676.674355] [<c0011130>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) from [<c0087548>] (
> warn_alloc_failed+0xe0/0x118)
>     [ 6676.674383] [<c0087548>] (warn_alloc_failed+0xe0/0x118) from [<
> c008a3ac>] (__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x74c/0x8f8)
>     [ 6676.674413] [<c008a3ac>] (__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x74c/0x8f8) from
> [<c00b2e8c>] (cache_alloc_refill+0x328/0x620)
>     [ 6676.674436] [<c00b2e8c>] (cache_alloc_refill+0x328/0x620) from [<
> c00b3224>] (__kmalloc+0xa0/0xe8)
>     [ 6676.674471] [<c00b3224>] (__kmalloc+0xa0/0xe8) from [<c0212904>] (
> edma_prep_slave_sg+0x84/0x388)
>     [ 6676.674505] [<c0212904>] (edma_prep_slave_sg+0x84/0x388) from [<
> c02ec0a0>] (omap_hsmmc_request+0x414/0x508)
>     [ 6676.674544] [<c02ec0a0>] (omap_hsmmc_request+0x414/0x508) from [<
> c02d6748>] (mmc_start_request+0xc4/0xe0)
>     [ 6676.674568] [<c02d6748>] (mmc_start_request+0xc4/0xe0) from [<
> c02d7530>] (mmc_start_req+0x2d8/0x38c)
>     [ 6676.674589] [<c02d7530>] (mmc_start_req+0x2d8/0x38c) from [<
> c02e4818>] (mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq+0xb4/0x9d8)
>     [ 6676.674611] [<c02e4818>] (mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq+0xb4/0x9d8) from [<
> c02e52e0>] (mmc_blk_issue_rq+0x1a4/0x468)
>     [ 6676.674631] [<c02e52e0>] (mmc_blk_issue_rq+0x1a4/0x468) from [<
> c02e5c68>] (mmc_queue_thread+0x88/0x118)
>     [ 6676.674657] [<c02e5c68>] (mmc_queue_thread+0x88/0x118) from [<
> c004d8b8>] (kthread+0xb4/0xb8)
>     [ 6676.674681] [<c004d8b8>] (kthread+0xb4/0xb8) from [<c000e298>] (
> ret_from_fork+0x14/0x3c)
>

This actually smells very much like the random mmc issues we saw on "3.8.x"
based images... mmc wasn't really fixed/solid till the 3.14.x timeline...
Not sure how much of that was back-ported to 3.12.10...

Regards,

-- 
Robert Nelson
https://rcn-ee.com/

-- 
For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"BeagleBoard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CAOCHtYiYgrAkSP_%2BbK-9z-abNiyr%3DdzSDzVQ9dAasSRpGTcw1Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to