Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

[Pekka Enberg]

  [ I'm CC'ing netdev. ]

On 24.8.2010 1.35, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Pekka Enberg put forth on 8/23/2010 4:37 AM:
>>   On 8/23/10 1:40 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> In Stan's case, it's a order-1 GFP_ATOMIC allocation but there are
>>>> only order-0 pages available. Mel, any recent page allocator fixes in
>>>> 2.6.35 or 2.6.36-rc1 that Stan/Mikael should test?
>>> This is the TCP slab? Best fix would be in the page allocator. However,
>>> in this particular case the slub allocator would be able to fall back to
>>> an order 0 allocation and still satisfy the request.
>> Looking at the stack trace of the oops, I think Stan has CONFIG_SLAB
>> which doesn't have order-0 fallback.
> That is correct.  The menuconfig help screen led me to believe the SLAB
> allocator was the "safe" choice:
>
> "CONFIG_SLAB:
> The regular slab allocator that is established and known to work well in
> all environments"
>
> Should I be using SLUB instead?  Any downsides to SLUB on an old and
> slow (500 MHz) single core dual CPU box with<512MB RAM?
I don't think the problem here is SLAB so it shouldn't matter which one 
you use. You might not see the problems with SLUB, though, because it 
falls back to 0-order allocations.
> Also, what is the impact of these oopses?  Despite the entries in dmesg,
> the system "seems" to be running ok.  Or is this simply the calm before
> the impending storm?
The page allocation failure in question is this:

kswapd0: page allocation failure. order:1, mode:0x20
Pid: 139, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 2.6.34.1 #1
Call Trace:
  [<c104b6b3>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x448/0x48a
  [<c1062ffb>] ? cache_alloc_refill+0x22f/0x422
  [<c11a9a73>] ? tcp_v4_send_check+0x6e/0xa4
  [<c10632c3>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x41/0x6a
  [<c11773a5>] ? sk_prot_alloc+0x19/0x55
  [<c117744b>] ? sk_clone+0x16/0x1cc
  [<c119a71d>] ? inet_csk_clone+0xf/0x80
  [<c11ac0e3>] ? tcp_create_openreq_child+0x1a/0x3c8
  [<c11aaf0a>] ? tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock+0x4b/0x151
  [<c11abf9d>] ? tcp_check_req+0x209/0x335
  [<c11aa892>] ? tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x8d/0x14d
  [<c11aacd5>] ? tcp_v4_rcv+0x383/0x56d
  [<c1193ba4>] ? ip_local_deliver+0x76/0xc0
  [<c1193b10>] ? ip_rcv+0x3dc/0x3fa
  [<c103655e>] ? ktime_get_real+0xf/0x2b
  [<c117f8d3>] ? netif_receive_skb+0x219/0x234
  [<c115ff46>] ? e100_poll+0x1d0/0x47e
  [<c117fa98>] ? net_rx_action+0x58/0xf8
  [<c102539c>] ? __do_softirq+0x78/0xe5
  [<c102542c>] ? do_softirq+0x23/0x27
  [<c1003955>] ? do_IRQ+0x7d/0x8e
  [<c1002aa9>] ? common_interrupt+0x29/0x30
  [<c1062870>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xbd/0xc5
  [<c10fa7d1>] ? __xfs_inode_set_reclaim_tag+0x29/0x2f
  [<c1075215>] ? destroy_inode+0x1c/0x2b
  [<c10752ce>] ? dispose_list+0xaa/0xd0
  [<c107548c>] ? shrink_icache_memory+0x198/0x1c5
  [<c104f76b>] ? shrink_slab+0xda/0x12f
  [<c104fc28>] ? kswapd+0x468/0x63b
  [<c104dca3>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x1bc
  [<c10304d6>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2d
  [<c1018faf>] ? complete+0x28/0x36
  [<c104f7c0>] ? kswapd+0x0/0x63b
  [<c10301cd>] ? kthread+0x61/0x66
  [<c103016c>] ? kthread+0x0/0x66
  [<c1002ab6>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10

It looks to me as if tcp_create_openreq_child() is able to cope with the 
situation so the warning could be harmless. If that's the case, we 
should probably stick a __GFP_NOWARN there.

                 Pekka

--
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>

Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

[Stan Hoeppner]

Pekka Enberg put forth on 8/24/2010 1:03 PM:

> It looks to me as if tcp_create_openreq_child() is able to cope with the
> situation so the warning could be harmless. If that's the case, we
> should probably stick a __GFP_NOWARN there.

If it would be helpful, here's a complete copy of dmesg:
http://www.hardwarefreak.com/2.6.34.1-dmesg-oopses.txt

Something I forgot to mention earlier is that every now and then I
unmount swap and drop caches to clear things out a bit.  Not sure if
that may be relevant, but since it has to do with memory allocation I
thought I'd mention it.

-- 
Stan

--
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>

Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> It looks to me as if tcp_create_openreq_child() is able to cope with the 
> situation so the warning could be harmless. If that's the case, we 
> should probably stick a __GFP_NOWARN there.

What about my situation? (a complete dmesg can be had at 
<http://swm.pp.se/dmesg.100809-2.txt.gz>)

[87578.494471] swapper: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x4020
[87578.494476] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.32-24-generic #39-Ubuntu
[87578.494480] Call Trace:
[87578.494483]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff810fad0e>] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x56e/0x580
[87578.494499]  [<ffffffff810fae7e>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x15e/0x1a0
[87578.494506]  [<ffffffff8112dba7>] alloc_pages_current+0x87/0xd0
[87578.494511]  [<ffffffff81133b17>] new_slab+0x2f7/0x310
[87578.494516]  [<ffffffff811363c1>] __slab_alloc+0x201/0x2d0
[87578.494522]  [<ffffffff81455fe6>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x36/0x60
[87578.494528]  [<ffffffff81137408>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0xb8/0x180
[87578.494532]  [<ffffffff81455fe6>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x36/0x60
[87578.494536]  [<ffffffff81455ca0>] __alloc_skb+0x80/0x190
[87578.494540]  [<ffffffff81455fe6>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x36/0x60
[87578.494564]  [<ffffffffa008f5c7>] rtl8169_rx_interrupt+0x247/0x5b0 [r8169]
[87578.494572]  [<ffffffffa008faad>] rtl8169_poll+0x3d/0x270 [r8169]
[87578.494580]  [<ffffffff810397a9>] ? default_spin_lock_flags+0x9/0x10
[87578.494586]  [<ffffffff8146029f>] net_rx_action+0x10f/0x250
[87578.494594]  [<ffffffffa008d54e>] ? rtl8169_interrupt+0xde/0x1e0 [r8169]
[87578.494600]  [<ffffffff8106e467>] __do_softirq+0xb7/0x1e0
[87578.494605]  [<ffffffff810c52c0>] ? handle_IRQ_event+0x60/0x170
[87578.494610]  [<ffffffff810142ec>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
[87578.494614]  [<ffffffff81015cb5>] do_softirq+0x65/0xa0
[87578.494618]  [<ffffffff8106e305>] irq_exit+0x85/0x90
[87578.494623]  [<ffffffff81549515>] do_IRQ+0x75/0xf0
[87578.494627]  [<ffffffff81013b13>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x11
[87578.494629]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff8130f7cb>] ? acpi_idle_enter_c1+0xa3/0xc1
[87578.494639]  [<ffffffff8130f7aa>] ? acpi_idle_enter_c1+0x82/0xc1
[87578.494646]  [<ffffffff8143a5a7>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0xa7/0x140
[87578.494652]  [<ffffffff81011e73>] ? cpu_idle+0xb3/0x110
[87578.494657]  [<ffffffff8153e27e>] ? start_secondary+0xa8/0xaa
[87578.494660] Mem-Info:
[87578.494662] Node 0 DMA per-cpu:
[87578.494666] CPU    0: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
[87578.494669] CPU    1: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
[87578.494672] CPU    2: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
[87578.494674] CPU    3: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
[87578.494677] Node 0 DMA32 per-cpu:
[87578.494680] CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 173
[87578.494683] CPU    1: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  87
[87578.494686] CPU    2: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 168
[87578.494689] CPU    3: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  63
[87578.494691] Node 0 Normal per-cpu:
[87578.494695] CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 177
[87578.494698] CPU    1: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 176
[87578.494700] CPU    2: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  82
[87578.494703] CPU    3: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 191
[87578.494710] active_anon:22970 inactive_anon:6433 isolated_anon:0
[87578.494711]  active_file:916528 inactive_file:914736 isolated_file:0
[87578.494713]  unevictable:0 dirty:135959 writeback:24423 unstable:0
[87578.494714]  free:9990 slab_reclaimable:59767 slab_unreclaimable:11135
[87578.494716]  mapped:119343 shmem:985 pagetables:2113 bounce:0
[87578.494719] Node 0 DMA free:15860kB min:20kB low:24kB high:28kB 
active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB 
unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15272kB 
mlocked:0kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB mapped:0kB shmem:0kB 
slab_reclaimable:0kB slab_unreclaimable:0kB kernel_stack:0kB 
pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 
all_unreclaimable? yes
[87578.494733] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 2866 7852 7852
[87578.494738] Node 0 DMA32 free:21420kB min:4136kB low:5168kB high:6204kB 
active_anon:4056kB inactive_anon:5856kB active_file:1322360kB 
inactive_file:1320432kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB 
isolated(file):0kB present:2935456kB mlocked:0kB dirty:190824kB 
writeback:31900kB mapped:157676kB shmem:0kB slab_reclaimable:107316kB 
slab_unreclaimable:15480kB kernel_stack:56kB pagetables:764kB unstable:0kB 
bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
[87578.494754] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 4986 4986
[87578.494759] Node 0 Normal free:2680kB min:7192kB low:8988kB 
high:10788kB active_anon:87824kB inactive_anon:19876kB 
active_file:2343752kB inactive_file:2338512kB unevictable:0kB 
isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:5105664kB mlocked:0kB 
dirty:353012kB writeback:65792kB mapped:319696kB shmem:3940kB 
slab_reclaimable:131752kB slab_unreclaimable:29060kB kernel_stack:2160kB 
pagetables:7688kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB 
pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
[87578.494775] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0
[87578.494779] Node 0 DMA: 3*4kB 3*8kB 3*16kB 1*32kB 2*64kB 2*128kB 
0*256kB 0*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 3*4096kB = 15860kB
[87578.494792] Node 0 DMA32: 789*4kB 765*8kB 589*16kB 1*32kB 1*64kB 
4*128kB 4*256kB 2*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 21356kB
[87578.494805] Node 0 Normal: 374*4kB 4*8kB 20*16kB 1*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 
1*256kB 1*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2648kB
[87578.494818] 1832322 total pagecache pages
[87578.494820] 0 pages in swap cache
[87578.494823] Swap cache stats: add 0, delete 0, find 0/0
[87578.494825] Free swap  = 0kB
[87578.494827] Total swap = 0kB
[87578.531041] 2064368 pages RAM
[87578.531044] 66019 pages reserved
[87578.531046] 1501227 pages shared
[87578.531048] 619257 pages non-shared
[87578.531053] SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x20)
[87578.531057]   cache: kmalloc-4096, object size: 4096, buffer size: 
4096, default order: 3, min order: 0
[87578.531061]   node 0: slabs: 1322, objs: 4129, free: 0

This actually made the machine go offline for hours before it for some 
reason came back. The second time this happened it did not come back 
(waited 8 hours).

I also seem to have TCP related problems:

[87578.531806]  [<ffffffff8113651f>] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x8f/0x160
[87578.531812]  [<ffffffff81455c6f>] __alloc_skb+0x4f/0x190
[87578.531820]  [<ffffffff814acbe0>] ? tcp_delack_timer+0x0/0x270
[87578.531828]  [<ffffffff814ab423>] tcp_send_ack+0x33/0x120
[87578.531834]  [<ffffffff814acd22>] tcp_delack_timer+0x142/0x270
[87578.531842]  [<ffffffff8105a34d>] ? scheduler_tick+0x18d/0x260
[87578.531849]  [<ffffffff8107776b>] run_timer_softirq+0x19b/0x340
[87578.531857]  [<ffffffff81094ac0>] ? tick_sched_timer+0x0/0xc0
[87578.531865]  [<ffffffff8108f723>] ? ktime_get+0x63/0xe0
[87578.531871]  [<ffffffff8106e467>] __do_softirq+0xb7/0x1e0
[87578.531878]  [<ffffffff810946aa>] ? tick_program_event+0x2a/0x30
[87578.531885]  [<ffffffff810142ec>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
[87578.531891]  [<ffffffff81015cb5>] do_softirq+0x65/0xa0
[87578.531897]  [<ffffffff8106e305>] irq_exit+0x85/0x90
[87578.531904]  [<ffffffff81549601>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x71/0x9c
[87578.531910]  [<ffffffff81013cb3>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20
[87578.531914]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff8130fbbe>] ? acpi_idle_enter_simple+0x117/0x14b
[87578.531928]  [<ffffffff8130fbb7>] ? acpi_idle_enter_simple+0x110/0x14b
[87578.531936]  [<ffffffff8143a5a7>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0xa7/0x140
[87578.531943]  [<ffffffff81011e73>] ? cpu_idle+0xb3/0x110
[87578.531950]  [<ffffffff8153e27e>] ? start_secondary+0xa8/0xaa


-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

--
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>

Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

[Pekka Enberg]

  On 24.8.2010 22.21, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> It looks to me as if tcp_create_openreq_child() is able to cope with 
>> the situation so the warning could be harmless. If that's the case, 
>> we should probably stick a __GFP_NOWARN there.
>
> What about my situation? (a complete dmesg can be had at 
> <http://swm.pp.se/dmesg.100809-2.txt.gz>)
This looks like something the kernel can't really recover from.
> [87578.494471] swapper: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x4020
> [87578.494476] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.32-24-generic 
> #39-Ubuntu
> [87578.494480] Call Trace:
> [87578.494483] <IRQ>  [<ffffffff810fad0e>] 
> __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x56e/0x580
> [87578.494499]  [<ffffffff810fae7e>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x15e/0x1a0
> [87578.494506]  [<ffffffff8112dba7>] alloc_pages_current+0x87/0xd0
> [87578.494511]  [<ffffffff81133b17>] new_slab+0x2f7/0x310
> [87578.494516]  [<ffffffff811363c1>] __slab_alloc+0x201/0x2d0
> [87578.494522]  [<ffffffff81455fe6>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x36/0x60
> [87578.494528]  [<ffffffff81137408>] 
> __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0xb8/0x180
> [87578.494532]  [<ffffffff81455fe6>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x36/0x60
> [87578.494536]  [<ffffffff81455ca0>] __alloc_skb+0x80/0x190
> [87578.494540]  [<ffffffff81455fe6>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x36/0x60
> [87578.494564]  [<ffffffffa008f5c7>] rtl8169_rx_interrupt+0x247/0x5b0 
> [r8169]
> [87578.494572]  [<ffffffffa008faad>] rtl8169_poll+0x3d/0x270 [r8169]
> [87578.494580]  [<ffffffff810397a9>] ? default_spin_lock_flags+0x9/0x10
> [87578.494586]  [<ffffffff8146029f>] net_rx_action+0x10f/0x250
> [87578.494594]  [<ffffffffa008d54e>] ? rtl8169_interrupt+0xde/0x1e0 
> [r8169]
> [87578.494600]  [<ffffffff8106e467>] __do_softirq+0xb7/0x1e0
> [87578.494605]  [<ffffffff810c52c0>] ? handle_IRQ_event+0x60/0x170
> [87578.494610]  [<ffffffff810142ec>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
> [87578.494614]  [<ffffffff81015cb5>] do_softirq+0x65/0xa0
> [87578.494618]  [<ffffffff8106e305>] irq_exit+0x85/0x90
> [87578.494623]  [<ffffffff81549515>] do_IRQ+0x75/0xf0
> [87578.494627]  [<ffffffff81013b13>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x11
> [87578.494629] <EOI>  [<ffffffff8130f7cb>] ? acpi_idle_enter_c1+0xa3/0xc1
> [87578.494639]  [<ffffffff8130f7aa>] ? acpi_idle_enter_c1+0x82/0xc1
> [87578.494646]  [<ffffffff8143a5a7>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0xa7/0x140
> [87578.494652]  [<ffffffff81011e73>] ? cpu_idle+0xb3/0x110
> [87578.494657]  [<ffffffff8153e27e>] ? start_secondary+0xa8/0xaa
> [87578.494660] Mem-Info:
> [87578.494662] Node 0 DMA per-cpu:
> [87578.494666] CPU    0: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
> [87578.494669] CPU    1: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
> [87578.494672] CPU    2: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
> [87578.494674] CPU    3: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
> [87578.494677] Node 0 DMA32 per-cpu:
> [87578.494680] CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 173
> [87578.494683] CPU    1: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  87
> [87578.494686] CPU    2: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 168
> [87578.494689] CPU    3: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  63
> [87578.494691] Node 0 Normal per-cpu:
> [87578.494695] CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 177
> [87578.494698] CPU    1: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 176
> [87578.494700] CPU    2: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  82
> [87578.494703] CPU    3: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd: 191
> [87578.494710] active_anon:22970 inactive_anon:6433 isolated_anon:0
> [87578.494711]  active_file:916528 inactive_file:914736 isolated_file:0
> [87578.494713]  unevictable:0 dirty:135959 writeback:24423 unstable:0
> [87578.494714]  free:9990 slab_reclaimable:59767 slab_unreclaimable:11135
> [87578.494716]  mapped:119343 shmem:985 pagetables:2113 bounce:0
> [87578.494719] Node 0 DMA free:15860kB min:20kB low:24kB high:28kB 
> active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB 
> unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15272kB 
> mlocked:0kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB mapped:0kB shmem:0kB 
> slab_reclaimable:0kB slab_unreclaimable:0kB kernel_stack:0kB 
> pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB 
> pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? yes
> [87578.494733] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 2866 7852 7852
> [87578.494738] Node 0 DMA32 free:21420kB min:4136kB low:5168kB 
> high:6204kB active_anon:4056kB inactive_anon:5856kB 
> active_file:1322360kB inactive_file:1320432kB unevictable:0kB 
> isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:2935456kB mlocked:0kB 
> dirty:190824kB writeback:31900kB mapped:157676kB shmem:0kB 
> slab_reclaimable:107316kB slab_unreclaimable:15480kB kernel_stack:56kB 
> pagetables:764kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB 
> pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
> [87578.494754] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 4986 4986
> [87578.494759] Node 0 Normal free:2680kB min:7192kB low:8988kB 
> high:10788kB active_anon:87824kB inactive_anon:19876kB 
> active_file:2343752kB inactive_file:2338512kB unevictable:0kB 
> isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:5105664kB mlocked:0kB 
> dirty:353012kB writeback:65792kB mapped:319696kB shmem:3940kB 
> slab_reclaimable:131752kB slab_unreclaimable:29060kB 
> kernel_stack:2160kB pagetables:7688kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB 
> writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
> [87578.494775] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0
> [87578.494779] Node 0 DMA: 3*4kB 3*8kB 3*16kB 1*32kB 2*64kB 2*128kB 
> 0*256kB 0*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 3*4096kB = 15860kB
> [87578.494792] Node 0 DMA32: 789*4kB 765*8kB 589*16kB 1*32kB 1*64kB 
> 4*128kB 4*256kB 2*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 21356kB
> [87578.494805] Node 0 Normal: 374*4kB 4*8kB 20*16kB 1*32kB 0*64kB 
> 0*128kB 1*256kB 1*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2648kB
You seem to have 4K pages available still. I wonder why the page 
allocator isn't giving them to SLUB?
> [87578.494818] 1832322 total pagecache pages
> [87578.494820] 0 pages in swap cache
> [87578.494823] Swap cache stats: add 0, delete 0, find 0/0
> [87578.494825] Free swap  = 0kB
> [87578.494827] Total swap = 0kB
> [87578.531041] 2064368 pages RAM
> [87578.531044] 66019 pages reserved
> [87578.531046] 1501227 pages shared
> [87578.531048] 619257 pages non-shared
> [87578.531053] SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x20)
> [87578.531057]   cache: kmalloc-4096, object size: 4096, buffer size: 
> 4096, default order: 3, min order: 0
> [87578.531061]   node 0: slabs: 1322, objs: 4129, free: 0
>
> This actually made the machine go offline for hours before it for some 
> reason came back. The second time this happened it did not come back 
> (waited 8 hours).
Do you see these out-of-memory problems with 2.6.35?

--
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>

Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Do you see these out-of-memory problems with 2.6.35?

Haven't tried it.

Has there been substantial work done there that changes things so that if 
I reproduce it on 2.6.35, someone will look into the issue in earnest? 
Since I'll most likely have to compile a new kernel, are there any debug 
options I should enable to give more information to aid fault finding?

I'll start with the .config file from Ubuntu 10.04 2.6.32 kernel and 
oldconfig from there.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

--
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>

Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

[Pekka Enberg]

  On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Do you see these out-of-memory problems with 2.6.35?
On 29.8.2010 15.38, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Haven't tried it.
>
> Has there been substantial work done there that changes things so that 
> if I reproduce it on 2.6.35, someone will look into the issue in 
> earnest? Since I'll most likely have to compile a new kernel, are 
> there any debug options I should enable to give more information to 
> aid fault finding?
There aren't any debug options that need to be enabled. The reason I'm 
asking is because we had a bunch of similar issues being reported 
earlier that got fixed and it's been calm for a while. That's why it 
would be interesting to know if 2.6.35 or 2.6.36-rc2 (if it's not too 
unstable to test) fixes things.

             Pekka

--
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>

Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> There aren't any debug options that need to be enabled. The reason I'm 
> asking is because we had a bunch of similar issues being reported 
> earlier that got fixed and it's been calm for a while. That's why it 
> would be interesting to know if 2.6.35 or 2.6.36-rc2 (if it's not too 
> unstable to test) fixes things.

Oki, I have installed 2.6.35 now (found backport from ubuntu 10.10 for 
10.04), just need to do a reboot at some convenient time.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

Re: 2.6.34.1 page allocation failure

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> There aren't any debug options that need to be enabled. The reason I'm 
>> asking is because we had a bunch of similar issues being reported earlier 
>> that got fixed and it's been calm for a while. That's why it would be 
>> interesting to know if 2.6.35 or 2.6.36-rc2 (if it's not too unstable to 
>> test) fixes things.
>
> Oki, I have installed 2.6.35 now (found backport from ubuntu 10.10 for 
> 10.04), just need to do a reboot at some convenient time.

I just rebooted and ran a similar load of network+disk load that made the 
machine give "swapper allocation failure" messages before, and I couldn't 
reproduce it with 2.6.35:

2.6.35-19-generic #25~lucid1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Aug 25 03:50:05 UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Doing "sync" in the middle made sync take more than 5+ minutes to complete 
(2 hung-task messages in dmesg), but at least nothing ran out of memory.

Considering the amount of people running 2.6.32 and who will be running it 
in the future, it still worries me that this is present in 2.6.32 (and 
earlier kernels as well).

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se