From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CDA6B0255 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:20:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so59348175wme.0 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com. [74.125.82.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hp9si46814051wjb.144.2015.11.27.00.20.13 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so48418419wme.1 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:20:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:20:10 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: 4.3+: Atheros ethernet fails after resume from s2ram, due to order 4 allocation Message-ID: <20151127082010.GA2500@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20151126163413.GA3816@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151126163413.GA3816@amd> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Pavel Machek Cc: kernel list , jcliburn@gmail.com, chris.snook@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-mm@kvack.org, nic-devel@qualcomm.com, ronangeles@gmail.com, ebiederm@xmission.com On Thu 26-11-15 17:34:13, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > ...and dmesg tells us what is going on: > > [ 6961.550240] NetworkManager: page allocation failure: order:4, > mode:0x2080020 This is GFP_ATOMIC|___GFP_RECLAIMABLE high order request. So something that the caller should tollerate to fail. > [ 6961.550249] CPU: 0 PID: 2590 Comm: NetworkManager Tainted: G > W 4.3.0+ #124 > [ 6961.550250] Hardware name: Acer Aspire 5732Z/Aspire 5732Z, BIOS > V3.07 02/10/2010 > [ 6961.550252] 00000000 00000000 f2ad1a04 c42ba5b8 00000000 f2ad1a2c > c40d650a c4d3ee1c > [ 6961.550260] f34ef600 00000004 02080020 c4eeef40 00000000 00000010 > 00000000 f2ad1ac8 > [ 6961.550266] c40d8caa 02080020 00000004 00000000 00000070 f34ef200 > 00000060 00000010 > [ 6961.550272] Call Trace: > ...[ 6961.550299] [] dma_generic_alloc_coherent+0x71/0x120 > [ 6961.550301] [] ? via_no_dac+0x30/0x30 > [ 6961.550307] [] atl1c_open+0x29e/0x300 > [ 6961.550313] [] ? call_netdevice_notifiers_info+0x25/0x50 > [ 6961.550316] [] __dev_open+0x7b/0xf0 > [ 6961.550318] [] __dev_change_flags+0x89/0x140 > [ 6961.550320] [] dev_change_flags+0x23/0x60 > [ 6961.550325] [] do_setlink+0x286/0x7b0 > [ 6961.550328] [] ? nla_parse+0x22/0xd0 > [ 6961.550330] [] rtnl_newlink+0x5d6/0x860 > [ 6961.550336] [] ? __lock_acquire.isra.24+0x3a1/0xc80 > [ 6961.550342] [] ? ns_capable+0x22/0x60 > [ 6961.550345] [] ? __netlink_ns_capable+0x2d/0x40 > [ 6961.550351] [] ? xprt_transmit+0x94/0x220 > [ 6961.550354] [] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x76/0x1f0 > [ 6961.550356] [] ? rtnetlink_rcv+0x30/0x30 > [ 6961.550359] [] netlink_rcv_skb+0x8e/0xb0 > ... > [ 6961.550412] Mem-Info: > [ 6961.550417] active_anon:30319 inactive_anon:25075 isolated_anon:0 > active_file:327764 inactive_file:152179 isolated_file:16 > unevictable:0 dirty:6 writeback:0 unstable:0 > slab_reclaimable:149091 slab_unreclaimable:18973 > mapped:18100 shmem:4847 pagetables:1538 bounce:0 > free:57732 free_pcp:10 free_cma:0 > ... > [ 6961.550492] 485897 total pagecache pages > [ 6961.550494] 1086 pages in swap cache > [ 6961.550496] Swap cache stats: add 16738, delete 15652, find > 6708/8500 > [ 6961.550497] Free swap = 1656440kB > [ 6961.550498] Total swap = 1681428kB > [ 6961.550499] 785914 pages RAM > [ 6961.550500] 557663 pages HighMem/MovableOnly > [ 6961.550501] 12639 pages reserved > [ 6961.550506] atl1c 0000:05:00.0: pci_alloc_consistend failed > [ 6962.148358] psmouse serio1: synaptics: queried max coordinates: x > [..5772], y [..5086] > > Order 4 allocation... probably doable during boot, but not really > suitable during resume. > > I'm not sure how repeatable it is, but it definitely happened more > than once. > > /* > * real ring DMA buffer > * each ring/block may need up to 8 bytes for alignment, hence the > * additional bytes tacked onto the end. > */ > ring_header->size = size = > sizeof(struct atl1c_tpd_desc) * tpd_ring->count * 2 + > sizeof(struct atl1c_rx_free_desc) * rx_desc_count + > sizeof(struct atl1c_recv_ret_status) * rx_desc_count + > 8 * 4; > > ring_header->desc = pci_alloc_consistent(pdev, ring_header->size, > &ring_header->dma); Why is pci_alloc_consistent doing an unconditional GFP_ATOMIC allocation? atl1_setup_ring_resources already does GFP_KERNEL allocation in the same function so this should be sleepable context. I think we should either add pci_alloc_consistent_gfp if there are no explicit reasons to not do so or you can workaround that by opencoding it and using dma_alloc_coherent directly with GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_REPEAT. This doesn't guarantee a success though because this is > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER but it would increase chances considerably. Also a vmalloc fallback can be used then more safely. > if (unlikely(!ring_header->desc)) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "pci_alloc_consistend failed\n"); > goto err_nomem; > } > > (Note the typo in dev_err... at least it is easy to grep). > > Ok, so what went on is easy.. any ideas how to fix it? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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