On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > > This is no regression between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. > > In fact we could reproduce the problem with kernel versions: > > > > 2.6.27.26 < X <= 2.6.30.3 > > > > (Meaning 2.6.27.26 is the last one _not_ showing the problem). > > > > And 2.6.28.10 is showing the exact same problem as initially reported, > right? Yes, that is correct. > I noticed your /var/log/messages is showing you're using slub as opposed > to slab (which Justin was using, and causing order-0 allocations errors). > SLUB uses order-1 allocations for this cache growth and it's failing > because of memory fragmentation, not because you're truly oom. Originally I used slab, and as someone wanted me to test slub I tried. The results looked pretty much the same to me. > The only thing that is immediately apparent that changed in this path over > these kernel versions (there were significant changes to e1000e) is the > CRC stripping. If it's loaded as a module, perhaps you could try > > modprobe e1000e CrcStripping=0,0 > > (assuming you have two adapters). I will try that. > I've cc'd some relevant e1000e driver people in the hopes they'll be able > to diagnose this problem. Memory fragmentation as the result of page > group changes wouldn't affect order-0 allocations such as this on slab, so > it's doubtful the VM regressed if you can reproduce the problem with > CONFIG_SLAB. I can, as said before, the problem first showed up with slab. -- Regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
