Re: E1000 - page allocation failure - saga continues :(

Re: E1000 - page allocation failure - saga continues :(

[linuxkernel2.20.sandos]

 >Anyway i'll try to catch THE option that make the kernel not so happy
 >under heavy stress. Stay tuned

How did this turn out? Any luck? Im seeing this same problem with my 
e1000, now I did enable rx/tx flow control, I reniced kswapd and I 
changed vm.min_free_kbytes to 65536, and the problem went away.

It would be nice with a "cleaner" solution though.

---
John Bäckstrand

Re: E1000 - page allocation failure - saga continues :(

[Nick Piggin]

linuxkernel2.20.sandos@spamgourmet.com wrote:
>  >Anyway i'll try to catch THE option that make the kernel not so happy
>  >under heavy stress. Stay tuned
> 
> How did this turn out? Any luck? Im seeing this same problem with my 
> e1000, now I did enable rx/tx flow control, I reniced kswapd and I 
> changed vm.min_free_kbytes to 65536, and the problem went away.
> 
> It would be nice with a "cleaner" solution though.
> 

What kernel are you using?

Are you doing a lot of block IO as well?

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Re: E1000 - page allocation failure - saga continues :( message 1 of 20)

[linuxkernel2.20.sandos@spamgourmet.com]

Nick Piggin - nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> linuxkernel2.20.sandos@spamgourmet.com wrote:
>
>>  >Anyway i'll try to catch THE option that make the kernel not so happy
>>  >under heavy stress. Stay tuned
>>
>> How did this turn out? Any luck? Im seeing this same problem with my 
>> e1000, now I did enable rx/tx flow control, I reniced kswapd and I 
>> changed vm.min_free_kbytes to 65536, and the problem went away.
>>
>> It would be nice with a "cleaner" solution though.
>>
>
> What kernel are you using?
> Are you doing a lot of block IO as well?

I am using 2.6.11.8.

Yes, the server is a fileserver for both the internet (~10Mbit) and 
internally (1Gbit e1000). Hardware is pretty old so is pretty heavily 
loaded and with 256MB RAM.

---
John Bäckstrand

Re: E1000 - page allocation failure - saga continues :( message 1 of 20)

[Nick Piggin]

linuxkernel2.20.sandos@spamgourmet.com wrote:
> Nick Piggin - nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> 
>> linuxkernel2.20.sandos@spamgourmet.com wrote:

>>> It would be nice with a "cleaner" solution though.
>>>
>>
>> What kernel are you using?
>> Are you doing a lot of block IO as well?
> 
> 
> I am using 2.6.11.8.
> 
> Yes, the server is a fileserver for both the internet (~10Mbit) and 
> internally (1Gbit e1000). Hardware is pretty old so is pretty heavily 
> loaded and with 256MB RAM.
> 

OK, well there are some patches in 2.6.12 that should make
things slightly better, and then some more patches in -mm
(not sure if they'll make it for 2.6.12) that should make
things slightly better again.

Basically they work towards reducing the memory allocation
"priority" for block IO requests, in relation to networking
and other atomic allocation requirements.

If you can't test the latest -mm, or 2.6.12-rc4, then wait
for 2.6.12 and 2.6.13 and check back on the problem.

Thanks,
Nick

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.