__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.

__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

Hi,
  I'm getting the above error on 2.4.9 kernel with kernel HIGHMEM option
enabled to 2GB, 2x Intel PentiumIII. The machine has 1GB RAM
physically. Althougj I've found many report to linux-kernel list during
past months, not a real solution. Maybe only:
http://www.alsa-project.org/archive/alsa-devel/msg08629.html

  I hope it's not related to memory chunks allocated twice, so I think
it's another problem in 2.4.9, right?

Linux version 2.4.9 (user@host) (gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux)) #4 SMP Thu Aug 30 15:10:26 CEST 2001
BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
 BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f400 (usable)
 BIOS-e820: 000000000009f400 - 000000000009f800 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: 00000000000e0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: 0000000000100000 - 0000000040000000 (usable)
 BIOS-e820: 00000000fec00000 - 00000000fec02000 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: 00000000fee00000 - 00000000fee01000 (reserved)
 BIOS-e820: 00000000fff80000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
128MB HIGHMEM available.
Scan SMP from c0000000 for 1024 bytes.
Scan SMP from c009fc00 for 1024 bytes.
Scan SMP from c00f0000 for 65536 bytes.
found SMP MP-table at 000ff780
hm, page 000ff000 reserved twice.
hm, page 00100000 reserved twice.
hm, page 000f0000 reserved twice.
hm, page 000f1000 reserved twice.
On node 0 totalpages: 262144
zone(0): 4096 pages.
zone(1): 225280 pages.
zone(2): 32768 pages.

shell$ free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       1028480     992840      35640          0      20832     821524
-/+ buffers/cache:     150484     877996
Swap:      2097136     100868    1996268


  The machine is running apache 1.3.20 and mysql-3.23.41 only, and is
not loaded yet. :( Any ideas? Thanks.
-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.

[Daniel Phillips]

On September 4, 2001 03:11 pm, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> Hi,
>   I'm getting the above error on 2.4.9 kernel with kernel HIGHMEM option
> enabled to 2GB, 2x Intel PentiumIII. The machine has 1GB RAM
> physically. Althougj I've found many report to linux-kernel list during
> past months, not a real solution. Maybe only:
> http://www.alsa-project.org/archive/alsa-devel/msg08629.html

Try 2.4.10-pre4.

>   I hope it's not related to memory chunks allocated twice,

It's not

> so I think it's another problem in 2.4.9, right?

Yep.  Most probably bounce buffers, patch by Marcelo already in Linus's
tree.

--
Daniel

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:

Hi,

> On September 4, 2001 03:11 pm, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> > Hi,
> >   I'm getting the above error on 2.4.9 kernel with kernel HIGHMEM option
> > enabled to 2GB, 2x Intel PentiumIII. The machine has 1GB RAM
> > physically. Althougj I've found many report to linux-kernel list during
> > past months, not a real solution. Maybe only:
> > http://www.alsa-project.org/archive/alsa-devel/msg08629.html
> 
> Try 2.4.10-pre4.

Hmm, so after a day of run we got it again:
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/1).

> > so I think it's another problem in 2.4.9, right?
> 
> Yep.  Most probably bounce buffers, patch by Marcelo already in Linus's
> tree.

So it did not fix it? But the output now has extra "(gfp=0x70/1)" string
appended.

Any ideas?
-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> On September 4, 2001 03:11 pm, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> > Hi,
> >   I'm getting the above error on 2.4.9 kernel with kernel HIGHMEM option
> > enabled to 2GB, 2x Intel PentiumIII. The machine has 1GB RAM
> > physically. Althougj I've found many report to linux-kernel list during
> > past months, not a real solution. Maybe only:
> > http://www.alsa-project.org/archive/alsa-devel/msg08629.html
> 
> Try 2.4.10-pre4.


Wow, I've just now realized that I get two types of error message:
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocatiocation failed (gfp=0x70/1).
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/1).

We are using LVM and ReiserFS, HIGMEM kernel.

Maybe it helps to track it down. Any ideas?
-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.

[Daniel Phillips]

On September 7, 2001 03:06 pm, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> > On September 4, 2001 03:11 pm, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >   I'm getting the above error on 2.4.9 kernel with kernel HIGHMEM option
> > > enabled to 2GB, 2x Intel PentiumIII. The machine has 1GB RAM
> > > physically. Althougj I've found many report to linux-kernel list during
> > > past months, not a real solution. Maybe only:
> > > http://www.alsa-project.org/archive/alsa-devel/msg08629.html
> > 
> > Try 2.4.10-pre4.
> 
> 
> Wow, I've just now realized that I get two types of error message:
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocatiocation failed (gfp=0x70/1).
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/1).
> 
> We are using LVM and ReiserFS, HIGMEM kernel.
> 
> Maybe it helps to track it down. Any ideas?

printk has a limited amount of space for buffering messages, a ring buffer 
(sort of) and will start dropping text when the buffer fills up, so as not
to slow the kernel down and/or interfere with interrupts.  So that is why
two lines of output got combined above, they are all the same message.

The gfp=0x70/1 identifies the failure as GFP_NOIO, PF_MEMALLOC, which by
process of eliminate, comes from alloc_bounce_page.  Marcelo's patch for
bounce buffer allocation is *not* in 2.4.10-pre4, so we haven't proved
anything yet.

You can get the patch from Marcelo's post on lkml on Aug 22 under the
subject "Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch (was: aic7xxx with 2.4.9 on
7899P)".  Note the correction posted in his next message in the thread.
It applies to 2.4.9.  Please try it and see if these failures go away.

This patch *should* be in the main tree soon.  Some testing by you would
help a lot.

--
Daniel

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.

[Daniel Phillips]

On September 7, 2001 10:43 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On September 7, 2001 03:06 pm, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > 
> > > On September 4, 2001 03:11 pm, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >   I'm getting the above error on 2.4.9 kernel with kernel HIGHMEM option
> > > > enabled to 2GB, 2x Intel PentiumIII. The machine has 1GB RAM
> > > > physically. Althougj I've found many report to linux-kernel list during
> > > > past months, not a real solution. Maybe only:
> > > > http://www.alsa-project.org/archive/alsa-devel/msg08629.html
> > > 
> > > Try 2.4.10-pre4.
> > 
> > 
> > Wow, I've just now realized that I get two types of error message:
> > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocatiocation failed (gfp=0x70/1).
> > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/1).
> > 
> > We are using LVM and ReiserFS, HIGMEM kernel.
> > 
> > Maybe it helps to track it down. Any ideas?
> 
> printk has a limited amount of space for buffering messages, a ring buffer 
> (sort of) and will start dropping text when the buffer fills up, so as not
> to slow the kernel down and/or interfere with interrupts.  So that is why
> two lines of output got combined above, they are all the same message.
> 
> The gfp=0x70/1 identifies the failure as GFP_NOIO, PF_MEMALLOC, which by
> process of eliminate, comes from alloc_bounce_page.  Marcelo's patch for
> bounce buffer allocation is *not* in 2.4.10-pre4, so we haven't proved
> anything yet.
> 
> You can get the patch from Marcelo's post on lkml on Aug 22 under the
> subject "Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch (was: aic7xxx with 2.4.9 on
> 7899P)".  Note the correction posted in his next message in the thread.
> It applies to 2.4.9.  Please try it and see if these failures go away.
> 
> This patch *should* be in the main tree soon.  Some testing by you would
> help a lot.

Correction, it's in Linus's tree all write, with some changed names.  So...
conclusion: Marcelo's approach is not airtight.  Or there was an error in
translation.  Arjan has a patch going in soon to the -ac tree, so stay
tuned.

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> > You can get the patch from Marcelo's post on lkml on Aug 22 under the
> > subject "Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch (was: aic7xxx with 2.4.9 on
> > 7899P)".  Note the correction posted in his next message in the thread.
> > It applies to 2.4.9.  Please try it and see if these failures go away.

Yes, it fixed my problem. I had to aplly also "patch" from someone from
this list, who replied to Daniel, because in original Daniels version of
patch were two typo mistakes.

> > This patch *should* be in the main tree soon.  Some testing by you would
> > help a lot.

I had a look on monday into the -pre7 but it did not look like it contains
this patch.

> Correction, it's in Linus's tree all write, with some changed names.  So...
> conclusion: Marcelo's approach is not airtight.  Or there was an error in
> translation.  Arjan has a patch going in soon to the -ac tree, so stay
> tuned.

I don't know what's Arjan's patch, but Marcelo's patch applied to plain
2.4.9 sources (manually applied) works for 2 days already here.

If you know how to push Marcelo's patch into the -preX version, please do
so. ;-)
-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

Hi,
  I tried 2.4.10-pre12 and run some mysql big tests (actually
mysql/tests/fork_big.pl ). And, the load is coming up and down from 17 to
6 .... and now, it's 1.7 only and I see in dmesg:

__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e3e2
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e3e2

Filename                        Type            Size    Used    Priority
/dev/sda2                       partition       2097136 41392   -1

The swap usage grew up from 11MB 40MB.

free gives:
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       1029776    1007360      22416          0       4548     463936
-/+ buffers/cache:     538876     490900
Swap:      2097136      41392    2055744

The system started to page-out when there were almost no buffers available
and many cached pages. The system started after bootup with cached=18k or
something like that.

/proc/meminfo
        total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  1054490624 880287744 174202880        0  4653056 460627968
Swap: 2147467264 42909696 2104557568
MemTotal:      1029776 kB
MemFree:        170120 kB
MemShared:           0 kB
Buffers:          4544 kB
Cached:         448416 kB
SwapCached:       1416 kB
Active:         377868 kB
Inactive:        76508 kB
HighTotal:      131072 kB
HighFree:         2044 kB
LowTotal:       898704 kB
LowFree:        168076 kB
SwapTotal:     2097136 kB
SwapFree:      2055232 kB


I have to say I've been using for a week without any "0-order allocation
failed" patch from Marcelo. Now I see am back to the old stage. ;(

> > You can get the patch from Marcelo's post on lkml on Aug 22 under the
> > subject "Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch (was: aic7xxx with 2.4.9 on
> > 7899P)".  Note the correction posted in his next message in the thread.
> > It applies to 2.4.9.  Please try it and see if these failures go away.

Please Cc: me in reply, if possible.
-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

Hi,
  one more addition:
I used mysqldump to dump some big database, and here's something weird:

jerboas:/mnt# ls -la
total 372024
drwxr-xr-x    2 root     root           80 Sep 19 16:34 .
drwxr-xr-x   20 root     root         4096 Sep 19 11:32 ..
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root     380946064 Sep 19 16:35 Celegans.sql
jerboas:/mnt# ls -la
ls: Celegans.sql: Value too large for defined data type
total 4
drwxr-xr-x    2 root     root           80 Sep 19 16:34 .
drwxr-xr-x   20 root     root         4096 Sep 19 11:32 ..
[1]-  Done                    /usr/local/mysql/bin/mysqldump -hlocalhost -P3306 -upedant Celegans >Celegans.sql
jerboas:/mnt# ls -la
ls: Celegans.sql: Value too large for defined data type
total 4
drwxr-xr-x    2 root     root           80 Sep 19 16:34 .
drwxr-xr-x   20 root     root         4096 Sep 19 11:32 ..
jerboas:/mnt# 

Running `mc' in this directory says:

File 'Celegans.sql' exists but can not be stat-ed: Value too large for defined data type 

It's on freshly made reiserfs filesystem, if it helps.
Sep 19 16:32:28 jerboas kernel: reiserfs: checking transaction log (device 03:41) ...
Sep 19 16:32:30 jerboas kernel: Using r5 hash to sort names
Sep 19 16:32:30 jerboas kernel: ReiserFS version 3.6.25

The source mysql directory on reiserfs on different disk, has 1693948 kB
(multiple files). In the /mnt it should the dump be all in one file, also
on reiserfs. The machine has 1GB RAM, SMP kernel, HIGHMEM enabled.
-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, [iso-8859-2] Martin MOKREJ© wrote:

>   I tried 2.4.10-pre12

> I have to say I've been using for a week without any "0-order allocation
> failed" patch from Marcelo. Now I see am back to the old stage. ;(

Impossible, the VM code which is in 2.4.10-pre11 and newer
wasn't published until sunday night, so you can't have been
using it for a week already. ;)

cheers,

Rik
-- 
IA64: a worthy successor to i860.

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, [iso-8859-2] Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:
> 
> >   I tried 2.4.10-pre12
> 
> > I have to say I've been using for a week without any "0-order allocation
> > failed" patch from Marcelo. Now I see am back to the old stage. ;(
> 
> Impossible, the VM code which is in 2.4.10-pre11 and newer
> wasn't published until sunday night, so you can't have been
> using it for a week already. ;)

Sorry, again: I'm currently using plain 2.4.9 patched with -pre12.
I get the allocation errors. I got the image from kernel.dk/testing/ today
morning, as someone posted this address on the list.

My previous kernel is plain 2.4.9 patched with Marcelo's patched and in a
week period I did not receive nay single error message like that.

-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Shane Wegner]

Hi,

I'm getting the same thing here.  At least it looks similar
though I'm not sure what's causing it.  Dual PIII 850, 1gb
ram, 300mb swap.

__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
c012e052
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
c012e052
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
c012e052


On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:21:43PM +0200, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> Hi,
>   I tried 2.4.10-pre12 and run some mysql big tests (actually
> mysql/tests/fork_big.pl ). And, the load is coming up and down from 17 to
> 6 .... and now, it's 1.7 only and I see in dmesg:
> 
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e3e2
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e3e2

-- 
Shane Wegner: shane@cm.nu
              http://www.cm.nu/~shane/
PGP:          1024D/FFE3035D
              A0ED DAC4 77EC D674 5487
              5B5C 4F89 9A4E FFE3 035D

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:34:41PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm getting the same thing here.  At least it looks similar
> though I'm not sure what's causing it.  Dual PIII 850, 1gb
							 ^^^ perfect
> ram, 300mb swap.
> 
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> c012e052
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> c012e052
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> c012e052

yes, please try this fix and let me know if it helps:

--- 2.4.10pre11aa1/mm/page_alloc.c.~1~	Tue Sep 18 15:39:50 2001
+++ 2.4.10pre11aa1/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Sep 20 00:36:11 2001
@@ -369,6 +369,7 @@
 		return NULL;
 	}
 
+ rebalance:
 	page = balance_classzone(classzone, gfp_mask, order, &freed);
 	if (page)
 		return page;
@@ -380,10 +381,13 @@
 			if (!z)
 				break;
 
-			page = rmqueue(z, order);
-			if (page)
-				return page;
+			if (zone_free_pages(z, order) > z->pages_min) {
+				page = rmqueue(z, order);
+				if (page)
+					return page;
+			}
 		}
+		goto rebalance;
 	} else {
 		/* 
 		 * Check that no other task is been killed meanwhile,


Andrea

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Shane Wegner]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:45:43AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:34:41PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > 
> > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > c012e052
> > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > c012e052
> > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > c012e052
> 
> yes, please try this fix and let me know if it helps:

After some stress testing, the fix does appear to fix the
error.

Shane


-- 
Shane Wegner: shane@cm.nu
              http://www.cm.nu/~shane/
PGP:          1024D/FFE3035D
              A0ED DAC4 77EC D674 5487
              5B5C 4F89 9A4E FFE3 035D

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:31:28PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:45:43AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:34:41PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > > 
> > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > c012e052
> > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > c012e052
> > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > c012e052
> > 
> > yes, please try this fix and let me know if it helps:
> 
> After some stress testing, the fix does appear to fix the
> error.

good, what about the performance, is it all right?

Andrea

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Shane Wegner]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:31:28PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:45:43AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:34:41PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > > 
> > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > c012e052
> > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > c012e052
> > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > c012e052
> > 
> > yes, please try this fix and let me know if it helps:
> 
> After some stress testing, the fix does appear to fix the
> error.

Hi,

Well just after I sent the email, it came up again.


Sep 19 19:31:52 continuum kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order
allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e052
Sep 19 19:33:51 continuum kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order
allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e052

Shane

-- 
Shane Wegner: shane@cm.nu
              http://www.cm.nu/~shane/
PGP:          1024D/FFE3035D
              A0ED DAC4 77EC D674 5487
              5B5C 4F89 9A4E FFE3 035D

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:36:49PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 07:31:28PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:45:43AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:34:41PM -0700, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > > c012e052
> > > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > > c012e052
> > > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from
> > > > c012e052
> > > 
> > > yes, please try this fix and let me know if it helps:
> > 
> > After some stress testing, the fix does appear to fix the
> > error.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Well just after I sent the email, it came up again.
> 
> 
> Sep 19 19:31:52 continuum kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order
> allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e052
> Sep 19 19:33:51 continuum kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order
> allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e052

did it happen as frequently/easily as before or did you need to stress
it much harder? And I'm also curious what happens if we simply lower the
watemark (possibly it was too high). Anyways the other patch is a good
idea to apply anyways.

So can now try the below new one?

--- 2.4.10pre11aa1/mm/page_alloc.c.~1~	Thu Sep 20 00:36:11 2001
+++ 2.4.10pre11aa1/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Sep 20 04:45:44 2001
@@ -346,7 +346,7 @@
 		if (!z)
 			break;
 
-		if (zone_free_pages(z, order) > (gfp_mask & __GFP_HIGH ? z->pages_min / 2 : z->pages_min)) {
+		if (zone_free_pages(z, order) > (gfp_mask & __GFP_HIGH ? z->pages_min / 4 : z->pages_min)) {
 			page = rmqueue(z, order);
 			if (page)
 				return page;


the fact is, kswapd is the only entity meant to shrink the caches for
the atomic pages, it exactly knows what are the zones that needs to be
balanced and we have a min-min/2 of pages of GAP that must be refilled
in time. It just seems kswapd doesn't cope with the frequency of the
allocations sometime, this may be ok but maybe we must find a way to
more aggressively free memory for the atomic allocations or it could
simply mean that the watermark GAP was too small as Marcelo just
suggested previously.

Can you also resolve "c012e052" so we know who's allocating those pages
just in case?

Andrea

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Randy.Dunlap]

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> Can you also resolve "c012e052" so we know who's allocating those pages
> just in case?

It's trivial to do that, of course, but if someone needs an
automated way to do it (several times, easy lookup), you can
try  http://www.osdlab.org/sw_resources/scripts/ksysmap .

Usage is:  ksysmap [system_map_file] offset

and it spits out address/symbol before offset, exact match if
present, and address/symbol after offset.

Example:

[rddunlap@dragon linux]$ ksysmap ./System.map-249acpi c012e052
ksysmap: searching './System.map-249acpi' for 'c012e052'

c012df20 T sys_truncate
c012e052 ..... <<<<<
c012e0a0 T sys_ftruncate

~Randy

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Keith Owens]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:02:45 -0700, 
"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdlab.org> wrote:
>Usage is:  ksysmap [system_map_file] offset
>and it spits out address/symbol before offset, exact match if

I like it!

Idea pinched for ksymoops 2.4.3; ksymoops -A "address list", any words
in the -A list are treated as addresses and looked up in the composite
system map, including modules.

Cannot compile 2.4.10pre12aa1 with 2.95.2 on Debian

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

Hi,
  first of all, thanks to Andrea. I had a bit hard time to find sources of
his kernel-patches.

Note to the FAQ maintainer: there isn't mentioned the source for -ac and
-aa kernels.

  I found that I need 2.4.9 patched to -pre12 and patched afterwards with 
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.10pre12aa1.bz2


  Using my old configuration for kernel I get after "make dep; make bzImage"

gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686   -c -o init/main.o init/main.c
In file included from /usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include/linux/mm.h:4,
                 from /usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include/linux/slab.h:14,
                 from /usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include/linux/proc_fs.h:5,
                 from init/main.c:15:
/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include/linux/sched.h:423: warning: `PF_USEDFPU' redefined
/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include/linux/sched.h:421: warning: this is the location of the previous definition
. scripts/mkversion > .version
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686  -DUTS_MACHINE='"i386"' -c -o init/version.o init/version.c
make CFLAGS="-D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 " -C  kernel
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/kernel'
make all_targets
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/kernel'
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686    -fno-omit-frame-pointer -c -o sched.o sched.c
In file included from /usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include/linux/mm.h:4,
                 from sched.c:24:
/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include/linux/sched.h:423: warning: `PF_USEDFPU' redefined
/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include/linux/sched.h:421: warning: this is the location of the previous definition
sched.c: In function `reschedule_idle':
sched.c:234: warning: `oldest_idle' might be used uninitialized in this function
sched.c: In function `sys_sched_yield':
sched.c:1130: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
sched.c: At top level:
sched.c:1135: parse error before `if'
sched.c:1142: parse error before `->'
make[2]: *** [sched.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/kernel'

 Note to Andrea, while you mention in your post to linux-kernel list
Changelog of your kernel relase, you do not mention for newbies like me se
source site and maybe "How to apply" would help also. ;) 

Thanks for replies! ;-)
-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: Cannot compile 2.4.10pre12aa1 with 2.95.2 on Debian

[Magnus Naeslund(f)]

From: "Martin MOKREJ©" <mmokrejs@natur.cuni.cz>

There are two defines for that FPU thing around line 421 in sched.c, take
one away (i deleted the 1<<6 one).

I'm running that kernel now.

Magnus

Re: Cannot compile 2.4.10pre12aa1 with 2.95.2 on Debian

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Magnus Naeslund(f) wrote:

> From: "Martin MOKREJŠ" <mmokrejs@natur.cuni.cz>
> 
> There are two defines for that FPU thing around line 421 in sched.c, take
> one away (i deleted the 1<<6 one).

I've just compiled and am going to reboot, one more note:
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
-fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686    -c -o pci-pc.o pci-pc.c
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:1116: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1201: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1288: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1370: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1381: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1392: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1479: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1491: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1503: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:1990: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
{standard input}:2083: Warning: indirect lcall without `*'
gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.10-pre12/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
-fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686    -c -o pci-irq.o pci-irq.c

-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: Cannot compile 2.4.10pre12aa1 with 2.95.2 on Debian

[Magnus Naeslund(f)]

From: "Magnus Naeslund(f)" <mag@fbab.net>
> From: "Martin MOKREJ©" <mmokrejs@natur.cuni.cz>
>
> There are two defines for that FPU thing around line 421 in sched.c, take
> one away (i deleted the 1<<6 one).
>

... And that should have been sched.h, as Martin kindly pointed out ;)
I meant something like this:

--- sched.h~    Thu Sep 20 10:20:44 2001
+++ sched.h     Thu Sep 20 11:29:06 2001
@@ -418,7 +418,9 @@
 #define PF_DUMPCORE    (1UL<<3)        /* dumped core */
 #define PF_SIGNALED    (1UL<<4)        /* killed by a signal */
 #define PF_MEMALLOC    (1UL<<5)        /* Allocating memory */
-#define PF_USEDFPU     (1UL<<6)        /* task used FPU this quantum (SMP)
*/
 #define PF_ATOMICALLOC (1UL<<7)        /* do not block during memalloc */
 #define PF_USEDFPU     (1UL<<8)        /* task used FPU this quantum (SMP)
*/
 #define PF_FREE_PAGES  (1UL<<9)        /* per process page freeing */

Magnus

Perf improvements in 2.4.10pre12aa1

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

Hi,
  I've just started some tests to try to repeat the memory allocation
errors. I see the aa1 kernel is twice fast as -pre12!? Is this expected?
I have 2x intelPIII 933MHz, 1GB RAM, HIGMEM kernel, ReiserFS, aic7xxx,
eepro100.


linux-2.4.10-pre12
dbench 16: Throughput 67.8566 MB/sec (NB=84.8208 MB/sec  678.566 MBit/sec)  16 procs

Yesterday after havy tests and after memory alloc. errors already
appeared:
        total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  1054490624 880287744 174202880        0  4653056 460627968
Swap: 2147467264 42909696 2104557568
MemTotal:      1029776 kB
MemFree:        170120 kB
MemShared:           0 kB
Buffers:          4544 kB
Cached:         448416 kB
SwapCached:       1416 kB
Active:         377868 kB
Inactive:        76508 kB
HighTotal:      131072 kB
HighFree:         2044 kB
LowTotal:       898704 kB
LowFree:        168076 kB
SwapTotal:     2097136 kB
SwapFree:      2055232 kB



linux-2.4.10-pre12aa1
dbench 16: Throughput 141.659 MB/sec (NB=177.074 MB/sec  1416.59 MBit/sec)  16 procs

Now after fresh bootup and just after I started first tests:
        total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  1054412800 110338048 944074752        0  8560640 59211776
Swap: 2147467264        0 2147467264
MemTotal:      1029700 kB
MemFree:        921948 kB
MemShared:           0 kB
Buffers:          8360 kB
Cached:          57824 kB
SwapCached:          0 kB
Active:              0 kB
Inactive:        66184 kB
HighTotal:      131072 kB
HighFree:        58612 kB
LowTotal:       898628 kB
LowFree:        863336 kB
SwapTotal:     2097136 kB
SwapFree:      2097136 kB


The documentation to dbech is a bit sparse (README,INSTALL). It's a bit
offtopic, but would someone explain me where does the dbench write, into
which directory? I performed the tests above under same user and in same
tmp/ directory, to be sure. Maybe it was not necessary at all. ;)

Thanks
-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: Perf improvements in 2.4.10pre12aa1

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:

Hi,
  stupid to reply to myself, but ...

> linux-2.4.10-pre12
> dbench 16: Throughput 67.8566 MB/sec (NB=84.8208 MB/sec  678.566 MBit/sec)  16 procs

> linux-2.4.10-pre12aa1
> dbench 16: Throughput 141.659 MB/sec (NB=177.074 MB/sec  1416.59 MBit/sec)  16 procs

Hmm, now after few ours of running mysql tests I have (while still running):
linux-2.4.10-pre12aa1
dbench 16: Throughput 41.1484 MB/sec (NB=51.4356 MB/sec  411.484 MBit/sec)  16 procs

Load so far up to 7 (yesterday even 16, but thatt dependes of course while
test is currently being run).


And, well oh NO!, it's here again:
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012f852

How can I find what mean those (gfp=0x20/0) from c012f852 ?
Current situation:
        total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  1054412800 845828096 208584704        0  3731456 476766208
Swap: 2147467264 61083648 2086383616
MemTotal:      1029700 kB
MemFree:        203696 kB
MemShared:           0 kB
Buffers:          3644 kB
Cached:         464100 kB
SwapCached:       1492 kB
Active:         318896 kB
Inactive:       150340 kB
HighTotal:      131072 kB
HighFree:         2044 kB
LowTotal:       898628 kB
LowFree:        201652 kB
SwapTotal:     2097136 kB
SwapFree:      2037484 kB

  5:29pm  up  4:58,  3 users,  load average: 5.61, 6.04, 6.32

-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Re: Perf improvements in 2.4.10pre12aa1

[Martin MOKREJŠ]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:

There was an answer already posted, amazing!

> And, well oh NO!, it's here again:
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012f852

ksysmap: searching '/boot/System.map-2.4.10-pre12aa1' for 'c012f852'

c012f83c T _alloc_pages
c012f852 ..... <<<<<
c012f854 t balance_classzone



-- 
Martin Mokrejs - PGP5.0i key is at http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~mmokrejs
MIPS / Institute for Bioinformatics <http://mips.gsf.de>
GSF - National Research Center for Environment and Health
Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

[PATCH] Make kernel build numbers work again (was: Re: Cannot compile 2.4.10pre12aa1 with 2.95.2 on Debian)

[Russell King]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:57:02AM +0200, Martin MOKREJ© wrote:
> . scripts/mkversion > .version

People,

As I'm sure you're all aware, being experts in userland programming, that
the above obviously cannot work and is totally bogus.

The mkversion script contains:

if [ ! -f .version ]
then
    echo 1
else
    expr 0`cat .version` + 1
fi

but wait!  As far as the script is concerned, .version will always exist
because its created before the script is run (the open occurs, the file is
truncated, and passed to the script as STDOUT).

This has a nice effect - the build number of the kernel is now fixed at '1'.
So, why don't we get rid of the above crap and just do "echo 1 > .version"
and be done with it? ;)

Alternatively, the following patch fixes things such that we can read the
original .version file within the script, if it existed prior to invocation,
and produce the correct build number.

Note that as illustrated by the previous poster, -linus now has the problem,
and -ac also has the same.  The following patch was generated against
2.4.9-ac10, but should apply to both trees without problem.

--- ref/Makefile	Wed Sep 19 14:00:24 2001
+++ linux/Makefile	Thu Sep 20 11:19:43 2001
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
 	drivers/sound/pndsperm.c \
 	drivers/sound/pndspini.c \
 	drivers/atm/fore200e_*_fw.c drivers/atm/.fore200e_*.fw \
-	.version .config* config.in config.old \
+	.version* .config* config.in config.old \
 	scripts/tkparse scripts/kconfig.tk scripts/kconfig.tmp \
 	scripts/lxdialog/*.o scripts/lxdialog/lxdialog \
 	.menuconfig.log \
@@ -306,7 +306,8 @@
 $(TOPDIR)/include/linux/compile.h: include/linux/compile.h
 
 newversion:
-	. scripts/mkversion > .version
+	. scripts/mkversion > .version.tmp
+	@mv -f .version.tmp .version
 
 include/linux/compile.h: $(CONFIGURATION) include/linux/version.h newversion
 	@echo -n \#define UTS_VERSION \"\#`cat .version` > .ver

--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: [PATCH] Make kernel build numbers work again (was: Re: Cannot compile 2.4.10pre12aa1 with 2.95.2 on Debian)

[Alan Cox]

> Note that as illustrated by the previous poster, -linus now has the problem,
> and -ac also has the same.  The following patch was generated against
> 2.4.9-ac10, but should apply to both trees without problem.

Looks right to me

Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed still in -pre12

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:21:43PM +0200, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> Hi,
>   I tried 2.4.10-pre12 and run some mysql big tests (actually
> mysql/tests/fork_big.pl ). And, the load is coming up and down from 17 to
> 6 .... and now, it's 1.7 only and I see in dmesg:
> 
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e3e2
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x20/0) from c012e3e2

Ok, I'm pretty certain I got it, I didn't noticed here because it can be
reproduced only with HIGHMEM and I didn't had time to test highmem yet
(btw, highmem emulation would been enough to reproduce it).

It was really an allocator bug. Totally untested fix appended
but recommended anyways for integration.

Marcelo can you also test it in your workload (feel free to use eepro100
too now).

--- 2.4.10pre11aa1/mm/page_alloc.c.~1~	Tue Sep 18 15:39:50 2001
+++ 2.4.10pre11aa1/mm/page_alloc.c	Thu Sep 20 00:36:11 2001
@@ -369,6 +369,7 @@
 		return NULL;
 	}
 
+ rebalance:
 	page = balance_classzone(classzone, gfp_mask, order, &freed);
 	if (page)
 		return page;
@@ -380,10 +381,13 @@
 			if (!z)
 				break;
 
-			page = rmqueue(z, order);
-			if (page)
-				return page;
+			if (zone_free_pages(z, order) > z->pages_min) {
+				page = rmqueue(z, order);
+				if (page)
+					return page;
+			}
 		}
+		goto rebalance;
 	} else {
 		/* 
 		 * Check that no other task is been killed meanwhile,

Andrea