* Re: [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure...
[not found] ` <6278d2220802170520k2ddf9072x386e4a9e3062f4da@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2008-02-18 12:58 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-19 17:37 ` Kok, Auke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2008-02-18 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel J Blueman; +Cc: Linux Kernel, netdev, Auke Kok
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:20:59 +0000 "Daniel J Blueman" <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm still hitting this with e1000e on 2.6.25-rc2, 10 times again.
>
> It's clearly non-fatal, but then do we expect it to occur?
>
> Daniel
>
> --- [dmesg]
>
> [ 1250.822786] swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x4020
> [ 1250.822786] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc2-119 #2
> [ 1250.822786]
> [ 1250.822786] Call Trace:
> [ 1250.822786] <IRQ> [<ffffffff8025fe9e>] __alloc_pages+0x34e/0x3a0
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8027acc2>] __slab_alloc+0x102/0x3d0
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8027b8cb>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x7b/0xc0
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048b74f>] __alloc_skb+0x6f/0x160
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8042652d>] e1000_alloc_rx_buffers+0x1ed/0x260
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80426b5a>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x22a/0x330
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80422981>] e1000_clean+0x1e1/0x540
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8024b7a5>] ? tick_program_event+0x45/0x70
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff804930ba>] net_rx_action+0x9a/0x150
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff802336b4>] __do_softirq+0x74/0xf0
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020c5fc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020eaad>] do_softirq+0x3d/0x80
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80233635>] irq_exit+0x85/0x90
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020eba5>] do_IRQ+0x85/0x100
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020a5b0>] ? mwait_idle+0x0/0x50
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020b981>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa
> [ 1250.822786] <EOI> [<ffffffff8020a5f5>] ? mwait_idle+0x45/0x50
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80209a92>] ? enter_idle+0x22/0x30
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020a534>] ? cpu_idle+0x74/0xa0
> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80527825>] ? rest_init+0x55/0x60
They're regularly reported with e1000 too - I don't think aything really
changed.
e1000 has this crazy problem where because of a cascade of follies (mainly
borked hardware) it has to do a 32kb allocation for a 9kb(?) packet. It
would be sad if that was carried over into e1000e?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure...
2008-02-18 12:58 ` [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure Andrew Morton
@ 2008-02-19 17:37 ` Kok, Auke
2008-02-24 12:37 ` Daniel J Blueman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kok, Auke @ 2008-02-19 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Daniel J Blueman, Linux Kernel, netdev
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:20:59 +0000 "Daniel J Blueman" <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm still hitting this with e1000e on 2.6.25-rc2, 10 times again.
are you sure? I don't think that's the case and you're seeing e1000 dumps here...
>> It's clearly non-fatal, but then do we expect it to occur?
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> --- [dmesg]
>>
>> [ 1250.822786] swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x4020
>> [ 1250.822786] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc2-119 #2
>> [ 1250.822786]
>> [ 1250.822786] Call Trace:
>> [ 1250.822786] <IRQ> [<ffffffff8025fe9e>] __alloc_pages+0x34e/0x3a0
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8027acc2>] __slab_alloc+0x102/0x3d0
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8027b8cb>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x7b/0xc0
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048b74f>] __alloc_skb+0x6f/0x160
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8042652d>] e1000_alloc_rx_buffers+0x1ed/0x260
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80426b5a>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x22a/0x330
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80422981>] e1000_clean+0x1e1/0x540
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8024b7a5>] ? tick_program_event+0x45/0x70
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff804930ba>] net_rx_action+0x9a/0x150
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff802336b4>] __do_softirq+0x74/0xf0
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020c5fc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020eaad>] do_softirq+0x3d/0x80
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80233635>] irq_exit+0x85/0x90
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020eba5>] do_IRQ+0x85/0x100
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020a5b0>] ? mwait_idle+0x0/0x50
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020b981>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa
>> [ 1250.822786] <EOI> [<ffffffff8020a5f5>] ? mwait_idle+0x45/0x50
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80209a92>] ? enter_idle+0x22/0x30
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020a534>] ? cpu_idle+0x74/0xa0
>> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80527825>] ? rest_init+0x55/0x60
>
> They're regularly reported with e1000 too - I don't think aything really
> changed.
>
> e1000 has this crazy problem where because of a cascade of follies (mainly
> borked hardware) it has to do a 32kb allocation for a 9kb(?) packet. It
> would be sad if that was carried over into e1000e?
can't be, I personally removed that code.
for MTU > 1500 e1000e uses a plain normal sized SKB. for anything bigger e1000e
uses pages.
so I don't see how this bug could still be showing up for e1000e at all. The large
skb receive code is all gone (literally, removed).
*please* rmmod e1000; modprobe e1000e and show the dumps again so we know for sure
that we're not looking at e1000 dumps.
short fix: increase ring size for e1000 with `modprobe e1000 RxDescriptors=4096`
(or use ethtool) and `echo -n 8192 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes` or something
like that.
what nic hardware is this on? lspci?
Auke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure...
2008-02-19 17:37 ` Kok, Auke
@ 2008-02-24 12:37 ` Daniel J Blueman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel J Blueman @ 2008-02-24 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kok, Auke; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Linux Kernel, netdev
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kok, Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:20:59 +0000 "Daniel J Blueman" <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm still hitting this with e1000e on 2.6.25-rc2, 10 times again.
> are you sure? I don't think that's the case and you're seeing e1000 dumps here...
Indeed so! I thought I moved to e1000e a time ago, but forgot that I
had moved back due to lack of support for 82566DC, added since.
I'm not seeing any related messages with e1000e after a few days'
uptime, so all looks well...
Thanks again,
Daniel
> >> It's clearly non-fatal, but then do we expect it to occur?
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >> --- [dmesg]
> >>
> >> [ 1250.822786] swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x4020
> >> [ 1250.822786] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc2-119 #2
> >> [ 1250.822786]
> >> [ 1250.822786] Call Trace:
> >> [ 1250.822786] <IRQ> [<ffffffff8025fe9e>] __alloc_pages+0x34e/0x3a0
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8027acc2>] __slab_alloc+0x102/0x3d0
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8027b8cb>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x7b/0xc0
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048b74f>] __alloc_skb+0x6f/0x160
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8042652d>] e1000_alloc_rx_buffers+0x1ed/0x260
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80426b5a>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x22a/0x330
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80422981>] e1000_clean+0x1e1/0x540
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8024b7a5>] ? tick_program_event+0x45/0x70
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff804930ba>] net_rx_action+0x9a/0x150
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff802336b4>] __do_softirq+0x74/0xf0
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020c5fc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020eaad>] do_softirq+0x3d/0x80
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80233635>] irq_exit+0x85/0x90
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020eba5>] do_IRQ+0x85/0x100
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020a5b0>] ? mwait_idle+0x0/0x50
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020b981>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa
> >> [ 1250.822786] <EOI> [<ffffffff8020a5f5>] ? mwait_idle+0x45/0x50
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80209a92>] ? enter_idle+0x22/0x30
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020a534>] ? cpu_idle+0x74/0xa0
> >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80527825>] ? rest_init+0x55/0x60
> >
> > They're regularly reported with e1000 too - I don't think aything really
> > changed.
> >
> > e1000 has this crazy problem where because of a cascade of follies (mainly
> > borked hardware) it has to do a 32kb allocation for a 9kb(?) packet. It
> > would be sad if that was carried over into e1000e?
>
> can't be, I personally removed that code.
>
> for MTU > 1500 e1000e uses a plain normal sized SKB. for anything bigger e1000e
> uses pages.
>
> so I don't see how this bug could still be showing up for e1000e at all. The large
> skb receive code is all gone (literally, removed).
>
> *please* rmmod e1000; modprobe e1000e and show the dumps again so we know for sure
> that we're not looking at e1000 dumps.
>
> short fix: increase ring size for e1000 with `modprobe e1000 RxDescriptors=4096`
> (or use ethtool) and `echo -n 8192 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes` or something
> like that.
>
> what nic hardware is this on? lspci?
>
> Auke
>
--
Daniel J Blueman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-02-24 12:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <6278d2220802141240g6ee2421ew94e57669ef930be6@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <6278d2220802170520k2ddf9072x386e4a9e3062f4da@mail.gmail.com>
2008-02-18 12:58 ` [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure Andrew Morton
2008-02-19 17:37 ` Kok, Auke
2008-02-24 12:37 ` Daniel J Blueman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).