From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCAC6B0035 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 01:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id h18so1599401igc.4 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 22:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe2d:44:76:96:27:227]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ac8si9193824icc.108.2014.03.28.22.40.43 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 22:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 00:40:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Bug in reclaim logic with exhausted nodes? In-Reply-To: <20140327203354.GA16651@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20140311210614.GB946@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140313170127.GE22247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140324230550.GB18778@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140325162303.GA29977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140325181010.GB29977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140327203354.GA16651@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, anton@samba.org, mgorman@suse.de On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > That looks to be the correct way to handle things. Maybe mark the node as > > offline or somehow not present so that the kernel ignores it. > > This is a SLUB condition: > > mm/slub.c::early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(): > ... > page = new_slab(kmem_cache_node, GFP_NOWAIT, node); > ... So the page allocation from the node failed. We have a strange boot condition where the OS is aware of anode but allocations on that node fail. > if (page_to_nid(page) != node) { > printk(KERN_ERR "SLUB: Unable to allocate memory from " > "node %d\n", node); > printk(KERN_ERR "SLUB: Allocating a useless per node structure " > "in order to be able to continue\n"); > } > ... > > Since this is quite early, and we have not set up the nodemasks yet, > does it make sense to perhaps have a temporary init-time nodemask that > we set bits in here, and "fix-up" those nodes when we setup the > nodemasks? Please take care of this earlier than this. The page allocator in general should allow allocations from all nodes with memory during boot, -- 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