On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 20:03:13 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 09:51 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 22:54 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 21:19 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > Package: linux-2.6 > > > > Version: 2.6.32-23 > > > > > > Oct 6 21:05:02 radis kernel: [378665.326381] NetworkManager: page > > > > allocation failure. order:4, mode:0x40d0 > > > > Oct 6 21:05:02 radis kernel: [378665.326393] Pid: 25555, comm: > > > > NetworkManager Not tainted 2.6.32-5-amd64 #1 > > > [...] > > > > Oct 6 21:05:02 radis kernel: [378665.363630] iwlagn 0000:0c:00.0: > > > > kmalloc for auxiliary BD structures failed > > > [...] > > > > > > This particular allocation is for an array which is not used for DMA and > > > therefore could be stored in non-contiguous pages allocated with > > > vmalloc(). But there may be some good reason not to do this. > > > > I have, however much more recently than that kernel, cleaned this up in > > commit ff0d91c3eea6e25b47258349b455671f98f1b0cd -- this particular > > allocation is now 2048 or 4096 bytes depending on the architecture (32 > > vs 64 bit pointers). If you want to backport this, there are two or > > three more commits right before it that would probably be required. > > It seems like we can get away with a much smaller change though. > Julien, could you test this patch? > Getting lots of those in dmesg: iwlagn 0000:0c:00.0: Too many chunks: 2
Doesn't seem to prevent the network from working though. Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
