On 2011-06-18, at 10:19 AM, Mark Lord <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11-06-17 09:16 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> >> Kernel 2.6.39.1, x86_64. >> Has anyone seen a page allocation failure on a NIC before? > .. >> [60295.925691] irq/64-eth3-TxR: page allocation failure. order:1, mode:0x20 >> [60295.945328] Pid: 2299, comm: irq/64-eth3-TxR Not tainted 2.6.39.1 #1 >> [60295.945329] Call Trace: >> [60295.945330] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810882f6>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x606/0x890 >> [60295.945341] [<ffffffff810b1435>] ? cache_alloc_refill+0x2c5/0x530 >> [60295.945343] [<ffffffff810b180b>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x7b/0xa0 >> [60295.945347] [<ffffffff815031ac>] ? sk_prot_alloc.clone.35+0x3c/0x120 >> [60295.945349] [<ffffffff81503320>] ? sk_clone+0x10/0x2b0 >> [60295.945352] [<ffffffff815580bb>] > > Not on a NIC, but also with 2.6.39: > > [35850.612899] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk > [35943.085264] mount: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0xc0d0 > [35943.085277] Pid: 14228, comm: mount Not tainted 2.6.39 #10 > [35943.085284] Call Trace: > [35943.085306] [<ffffffff8106fa96>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x710/0x74d > [35943.085322] [<ffffffff8106fb5b>] ? __get_free_pages+0x12/0x50 > [35943.085335] [<ffffffff810f9120>] ? ext4_fill_super+0xe4f/0x20ff > [35943.085347] [<ffffffff810f82d1>] ? ext4_remount+0x40e/0x40e There are a few places in the ext4 mount that are doing large allocations. In some places they fall back to vmalloc, so they should really be done with GFP_NOWARN. A few places don't yet fall back to vmalloc(), which is a problem with fragmented memory or very large filesystems. We were trying to test a 192TB ext4 filesystem, but were unable to mount it without patching the kernel. Cheers, Andreas-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
