From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752885Ab2IXJOg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:14:36 -0400
Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:35821 "EHLO
	sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751454Ab2IXJOe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:14:34 -0400
Message-ID: <1348478089.10257.3.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: iwl3945: order 5 allocation during ifconfig up; vm problem?
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Marc MERLIN <marc@merlins.org>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, sgruszka@redhat.com,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com,
        ilw@linux.intel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:14:49 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20120924090353.GA5368@mwanda>
References: <20120909213228.GA5538@elf.ucw.cz>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1209091539530.16930@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
	 <20120910111113.GA25159@elf.ucw.cz>
	 <20120911162536.bd5171a1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	 <1347426988.13103.684.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <20120912055712.GE11613@merlins.org>
	 <1347432846.4293.0.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
	 <20120924090353.GA5368@mwanda>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.3-1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 12:03 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> > > > iwl_alloc_ucode() -> iwl_alloc_fw_desc() -> dma_alloc_coherent()
> 
> I'm filing bugzilla entries for regressions.  What's the status on
> this?

It looks like a VM change caused it, but I merged a patch for -next to
not require such large DMA allocations any more.

johannes