On Thu 30-11-17 22:01:03, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:50:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 30-11-17 21:38:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > It looks like a regression in 4.15.0-rc1 -- the test case simply run a
> > > set of parallel dd's and there
On Thu 30-11-17 22:01:03, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:50:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 30-11-17 21:38:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > It looks like a regression in 4.15.0-rc1 -- the test case simply run a
> > > set of parallel dd's and there
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
[ 78.848629] dd: page allocation failure: order:0,
mode:0x1080020(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null)
[ 78.857841] dd cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0-1
[ 78.862502] CPU: 0 PID: 6131 Comm: dd Tainted: G O 4.15.0-rc1
#1
[
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:04PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
[ 78.848629] dd: page allocation failure: order:0,
mode:0x1080020(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null)
[ 78.857841] dd cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0-1
[ 78.862502] CPU: 0 PID: 6131 Comm: dd Tainted: G O 4.15.0-rc1
#1
[
[ 78.848629] dd: page allocation failure: order:0,
mode:0x1080020(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null)
[ 78.857841] dd cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0-1
[ 78.862502] CPU: 0 PID: 6131 Comm: dd Tainted: G O 4.15.0-rc1
#1
[ 78.870437] Call Trace:
[ 78.873610]
[ 78.876342]
[ 78.848629] dd: page allocation failure: order:0,
mode:0x1080020(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null)
[ 78.857841] dd cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0-1
[ 78.862502] CPU: 0 PID: 6131 Comm: dd Tainted: G O 4.15.0-rc1
#1
[ 78.870437] Call Trace:
[ 78.873610]
[ 78.876342]
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:50:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 30-11-17 21:38:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
Hello,
It looks like a regression in 4.15.0-rc1 -- the test case simply run a
set of parallel dd's and there seems no reason to run into memory problem.
It occurs in 1 out of 4 tests.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:50:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 30-11-17 21:38:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
Hello,
It looks like a regression in 4.15.0-rc1 -- the test case simply run a
set of parallel dd's and there seems no reason to run into memory problem.
It occurs in 1 out of 4 tests.
On Thu 30-11-17 21:38:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It looks like a regression in 4.15.0-rc1 -- the test case simply run a
> set of parallel dd's and there seems no reason to run into memory problem.
>
> It occurs in 1 out of 4 tests.
This is an atomic allocations. So the failure really
On Thu 30-11-17 21:38:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It looks like a regression in 4.15.0-rc1 -- the test case simply run a
> set of parallel dd's and there seems no reason to run into memory problem.
>
> It occurs in 1 out of 4 tests.
This is an atomic allocations. So the failure really
10 matches
Mail list logo