Re: ipw2200: firmware DMA loading rework

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Monday 21 September 2009 10:58:44 Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 03:25:32PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 September 2009 20:26:17 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 02 September 2009 20:02:14 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Bartlomiej
> > > > Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 30 August 2009 14:37:42 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > >> On Friday 28 August 2009 05:42:31 Zhu Yi wrote:
> > > > >> > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz reported an atomic order-6 allocation failure
> > > > >> > for ipw2200 firmware loading in kernel 2.6.30. High order allocation is
> > > > >>
> > > > >> s/2.6.30/2.6.31-rc6/
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The issue has always been there but it was some recent change that
> > > > >> explicitly triggered the allocation failures (after 2.6.31-rc1).
> > > > >
> > > > > ipw2200 fix works fine but yesterday I got the following error while mounting
> > > > > ext4 filesystem (mb_history is optional so the mount succeeded):
> > > > 
> > > > OK so the mount succeeded.
> > > > 
> > > > > EXT4-fs (dm-2): barriers enabled
> > > > > kjournald2 starting: pid 3137, dev dm-2:8, commit interval 5 seconds
> > > > > EXT4-fs (dm-2): internal journal on dm-2:8
> > > > > EXT4-fs (dm-2): delayed allocation enabled
> > > > > EXT4-fs: file extents enabled
> > > > > mount: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0xc0d0
> > > > > Pid: 3136, comm: mount Not tainted 2.6.31-rc8-00015-gadda766-dirty #78
> > > > > Call Trace:
> > > > >  [<c0394de3>] ? printk+0xf/0x14
> > > > >  [<c016a693>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x400/0x442
> > > > >  [<c016a71b>] __get_free_pages+0xf/0x32
> > > > >  [<c01865cf>] __kmalloc+0x28/0xfa
> > > > >  [<c023d96f>] ? __spin_lock_init+0x28/0x4d
> > > > >  [<c01f529d>] ext4_mb_init+0x392/0x460
> > > > >  [<c01e99d2>] ext4_fill_super+0x1b96/0x2012
> > > > >  [<c0239bc8>] ? snprintf+0x15/0x17
> > > > >  [<c01c0b26>] ? disk_name+0x24/0x69
> > > > >  [<c018ba63>] get_sb_bdev+0xda/0x117
> > > > >  [<c01e6711>] ext4_get_sb+0x13/0x15
> > > > >  [<c01e7e3c>] ? ext4_fill_super+0x0/0x2012
> > > > >  [<c018ad2d>] vfs_kern_mount+0x3b/0x76
> > > > >  [<c018adad>] do_kern_mount+0x33/0xbd
> > > > >  [<c019d0af>] do_mount+0x660/0x6b8
> > > > >  [<c016a71b>] ? __get_free_pages+0xf/0x32
> > > > >  [<c019d168>] sys_mount+0x61/0x99
> > > > >  [<c0102908>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
> > > > > Mem-Info:
> > > > > DMA per-cpu:
> > > > > CPU    0: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
> > > > > Normal per-cpu:
> > > > > CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:   0
> > > > > Active_anon:25471 active_file:22802 inactive_anon:25812
> > > > >  inactive_file:33619 unevictable:2 dirty:2452 writeback:135 unstable:0
> > > > >  free:4346 slab:4308 mapped:26038 pagetables:912 bounce:0
> > > > > DMA free:2060kB min:84kB low:104kB high:124kB active_anon:1660kB inactive_anon:1848kB active_file:144kB inactive_file:868kB unevictable:0kB present:15788kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
> > > > > lowmem_reserve[]: 0 489 489
> > > > > Normal free:15324kB min:2788kB low:3484kB high:4180kB active_anon:100224kB inactive_anon:101400kB active_file:91064kB inactive_file:133608kB unevictable:8kB present:501392kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
> > > > > lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
> > > > > DMA: 1*4kB 1*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2060kB
> > > > > Normal: 1283*4kB 648*8kB 159*16kB 53*32kB 10*64kB 1*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 15324kB
> > > > > 57947 total pagecache pages
> > > > > 878 pages in swap cache
> > > > > Swap cache stats: add 920, delete 42, find 11/11
> > > > > Free swap  = 1016436kB
> > > > > Total swap = 1020116kB
> > > > > 131056 pages RAM
> > > > > 4233 pages reserved
> > > > > 90573 pages shared
> > > > > 77286 pages non-shared
> > > > > EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
> > > > > EXT4-fs (dm-2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus it seems like the original bug is still there and any ideas how to
> > > > > debug the problem further are appreciated..
> > > > >
> > > > > The complete dmesg and kernel config are here:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/bart/ext4-paf.dmesg
> > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/bart/ext4-paf.config
> > > > 
> > > > This looks very similar to the kmemleak ext4 reports upon a mount. If
> > > > it is the same issue, which from the trace it seems it is, then this
> > > > is due to an extra kmalloc() allocation and this apparently will not
> > > > get fixed on 2.6.31 due to the closeness of the merge window and the
> > > > non-criticalness this issue has been deemed.
> > > > 
> > > > A patch fix is part of the ext4-patchqueue
> > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/ext4-patch-queue.git
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the pointer but the page allocation failures that I hit seem
> > > to be caused by the memory management itself and the ext4 issue fixed by:
> > > 
> > > http://repo.or.cz/w/ext4-patch-queue.git?a=blob;f=memory-leak-fix-ext4_group_info-allocation;h=c919fff34e70ec85f96d1833f9ce460c451000de;hb=HEAD
> > > 
> > > is a different problem (unrelated to this one).
> > 
> > Here is another data point.
> > 
> > This time it is an order-6 page allocation failure for rt2870sta
> > (w/ upcoming driver changes) and Linus' tree from few days ago..
> > 
> 
> It's another high-order atomic allocation which is difficult to grant.
> I didn't look closely, but is this the same type of thing - large allocation
> failure during firmware loading? If so, is this during resume or is the
> device being reloaded for some other reason?

Just modprobing the driver on a system running for some time.

> I suspect that there are going to be a few of these bugs cropping up
> every so often where network devices are assuming large atomic
> allocations will succeed because the "only time they happen" is during
> boot but these days are happening at runtime for other reasons.

I wouldn't go so far as calling a normal order-6 (256kB) allocation on
512MB machine with 1024MB swap a bug.  Moreover such failures just never
happened before 2.6.31-rc1.

I don't know why people don't see it but for me it has a memory management
regression and reliability issue written all over it.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>