From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615FF6B004F for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:59:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:59:54 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [Bug #14141] order 2 page allocation failures (generic) Message-ID: <20091019145954.GH9036@csn.ul.ie> References: <3onW63eFtRF.A.xXH.oMTxKB@chimera> <200910190133.33183.elendil@planet.nl> <1255912562.6824.9.camel@penberg-laptop> <200910190444.55867.elendil@planet.nl> <20091019133146.GB9036@csn.ul.ie> <20091019140957.GE9036@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Tobias Oetiker Cc: Frans Pop , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Reinette Chatre , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Karol Lewandowski , Mohamed Abbas , "John W. Linville" , linux-mm@kvack.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com List-ID: On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 04:16:36PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > Hi Mel, > > Today Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 03:40:05PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > > Hi Mel, > > > > > > Today Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:49:08AM +0200, Tobi Oetiker wrote: > > > > > Today Frans Pop wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm starting to think that this commit may not be directly related to high > > > > > > order allocation failures. The fact that I'm seeing SKB allocation > > > > > > failures earlier because of this commit could be just a side effect. > > > > > > It could be that instead the main impact of this commit is on encrypted > > > > > > file system and/or encrypted swap (kcryptd). > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides mm the commit also touches dm-crypt (and nfs/write.c, but as I'm > > > > > > only reading from NFS that's unlikely). > > > > > > > > > > I have updated a fileserver to 2.6.31 today and I see page > > > > > allocation failures from several parts of the system ... mostly nfs though ... (it is a nfs server). > > > > > So I guess the problem must be quite generic: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684110] swapper: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x4020 [kern.warning] > > > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684118] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.31-02063104-generic #02063104 [kern.warning] > > > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684121] Call Trace: [kern.warning] > > > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684124] [] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x3b2/0x4c0 [kern.warning] > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the rest of the stack trace? I'm wondering where a large number > > > > of order-5 GFP_ATOMIC allocations are coming from. It seems different to > > > > the e100 problem where there is one GFP_ATOMIC allocation while the > > > > firmware is being loaded. > > > > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684110] swapper: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0x4020 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684118] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.31-02063104-generic #02063104 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684121] Call Trace: [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684124] [] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x3b2/0x4c0 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684157] [] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x135/0x140 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684164] [] ? _spin_unlock_bh+0x14/0x20 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684170] [] kmalloc_large_node+0x68/0xc0 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684175] [] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x11a/0x180 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684181] [] ? skb_copy+0x32/0xa0 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684185] [] __alloc_skb+0x76/0x180 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684205] [] skb_copy+0x32/0xa0 [kern.warning] > > > Oct 19 07:10:02 johan kernel: [23565.684221] [] vboxNetFltLinuxPacketHandler+0x5c/0xd0 [vboxnetflt] [kern.warning] > > > > Is the MTU set very high between the host and virtualised machine? > > > > Can you test please with the patch at http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/16/89 > > applied and with commits 373c0a7e and 8aa7e847 reverted please? > > if you can send me a consolidated patch which does apply to > 2.6.31.4 I will be glad to try ... > Sure ==== CUT HERE ====