From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f69.google.com (mail-lf0-f69.google.com [209.85.215.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34316B0005 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f69.google.com with SMTP id p41so12261034lfi.0 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y193si20080062wmy.53.2016.07.19.06.17.30 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Question]page allocation failure: order:2, mode:0x2000d1 References: From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <5d0d3274-a893-8453-fb3d-87981dd38cfa@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:17:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yisheng Xie , minchan@kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, mina86@mina86.com, Naoya Horiguchi , cl@linux.com, David Rientjes Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Hanjun Guo , qiuxishi@huawei.com On 07/19/2016 02:43 PM, Yisheng Xie wrote: > hi all, > I'm getting a 2-order page allocation failure problem on 4.1.18. > From the Mem-info, it seems the system have much zero order free pages which can be used for memory compaction. > Is it possible that the memory compacted by current process used by other process soon, which cause page allocation failure of current process ? It's possible, but an order-2 allocation should retry compaction in such case. > > --- dmesg messages --- > 07-13 08:41:51.341 <4>[309805.658142s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]sManagerService: page allocation failure: order:2, mode:0x2000d1 Geez, these old kernels that can't print the mode human-readably... #define ___GFP_DMA 0x01 #define ___GFP_WAIT 0x10 #define ___GFP_IO 0x40 #define ___GFP_FS 0x80 #define ___GFP_NOTRACK 0x200000 Compaction indeed should be possible. And it's a non-costly allocation. It shouldn't even be allowed to fail, unless the process was killed? > 07-13 08:41:51.346 <4>[309805.658142s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]CPU: 5 PID: 1361 Comm: sManagerService Tainted: G W 4.1.18-g09f547b #1 There's a W taint flag so there should have been a WARN message/backtrace preceding it. What is it? It could be related. > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658142s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]TGID: 981 Comm: system_server > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658172s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]Hardware name: hi3650 (DT) > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <0>[309805.658172s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]Call trace: > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658203s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x150 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658203s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] show_stack+0x20/0x28 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658203s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] dump_stack+0x84/0xa8 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658203s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] warn_alloc_failed+0x10c/0x164 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658233s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x5b4/0x888 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658233s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] alloc_kmem_pages_node+0x44/0x50 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658233s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] copy_process.part.46+0x140/0x15ac > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658233s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] do_fork+0xe8/0x444 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658264s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService][] SyS_clone+0x3c/0x48 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658264s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]Mem-Info: > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658264s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]active_anon:491074 inactive_anon:118072 isolated_anon:0 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658264s] active_file:19087 inactive_file:9843 isolated_file:0 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658264s] unevictable:322 dirty:20 writeback:0 unstable:0 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658264s] slab_reclaimable:11788 slab_unreclaimable:28068 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658264s] mapped:20633 shmem:4038 pagetables:10865 bounce:72 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658264s] free:118678 free_pcp:58 free_cma:0 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658294s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]DMA free:470628kB min:6800kB low:29116kB high:30816kB active_anon:1868540kB inactive_anon:376100kB active_file:292kB inactive_file:240kB unevictable:1080kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:3446780kB managed:3307056kB mlocked:1080kB dirty:80kB writeback:0kB mapped:7604kB shmem:14380kB slab_reclaimable:47152kB slab_unreclaimable:112268kB kernel_stack:28224kB pagetables:43460kB unstable:0kB bounce:288kB free_pcp:204kB local_pcp:0kB free_cma:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658294s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]lowmem_reserve[]: 0 415 415 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658294s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]Normal free:4084kB min:872kB low:3740kB high:3960kB active_anon:95756kB inactive_anon:96188kB active_file:76056kB inactive_file:39132kB unevictable:208kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:524288kB managed:425480kB mlocked:208kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB mapped:74928kB shmem:1772kB slab_reclaimable:0kB slab_unreclaimable:4kB kernel_stack:0kB pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:28kB local_pcp:0kB free_cma:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658294s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658325s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]DMA: 68324*4kB (UEM) 24706*8kB (UER) 2*16kB (U) 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 470976kB Indeed compaction should be doing something with this... > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658355s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]Normal: 270*4kB (UMR) 82*8kB (UMR) 48*16kB (MR) 25*32kB (R) 12*64kB (R) 2*128kB (R) 1*256kB (R) 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 4584kB > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658386s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]38319 total pagecache pages > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658386s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]5384 pages in swap cache > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658386s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]Swap cache stats: add 628084, delete 622700, find 2187699/2264909 > 07-13 08:41:51.347 <4>[309805.658386s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]Free swap = 0kB > 07-13 08:41:51.348 <4>[309805.658416s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]Total swap = 524284kB > 07-13 08:41:51.348 <4>[309805.658416s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]992767 pages RAM > 07-13 08:41:51.348 <4>[309805.658416s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]0 pages HighMem/MovableOnly > 07-13 08:41:51.348 <4>[309805.658416s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]51441 pages reserved > 07-13 08:41:51.348 <4>[309805.658416s][pid:1361,cpu5,sManagerService]8192 pages cma reserved > 07-13 08:41:51.767 <6>[309806.068298s][pid:2247,cpu6,notification-sq][I/sensorhub] shb_release ok > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org