On Monday 21 September 2009 10:58:44 Mel Gorman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 03:25:32PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Wednesday 02 September 2009 20:26:17 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > On Wednesday 02 September 2009 20:02:14 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Bartlomiej > > > > Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sunday 30 August 2009 14:37:42 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > >> On Friday 28 August 2009 05:42:31 Zhu Yi wrote: > > > > >> > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz reported an atomic order-6 allocation failure > > > > >> > for ipw2200 firmware loading in kernel 2.6.30. High order allocation is > > > > >> > > > > >> s/2.6.30/2.6.31-rc6/ > > > > >> > > > > >> The issue has always been there but it was some recent change that > > > > >> explicitly triggered the allocation failures (after 2.6.31-rc1). > > > > > > > > > > ipw2200 fix works fine but yesterday I got the following error while mounting > > > > > ext4 filesystem (mb_history is optional so the mount succeeded): > > > > > > > > OK so the mount succeeded. > > > > > > > > > EXT4-fs (dm-2): barriers enabled > > > > > kjournald2 starting: pid 3137, dev dm-2:8, commit interval 5 seconds > > > > > EXT4-fs (dm-2): internal journal on dm-2:8 > > > > > EXT4-fs (dm-2): delayed allocation enabled > > > > > EXT4-fs: file extents enabled > > > > > mount: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0xc0d0 > > > > > Pid: 3136, comm: mount Not tainted 2.6.31-rc8-00015-gadda766-dirty #78 > > > > > Call Trace: > > > > > [<c0394de3>] ? printk+0xf/0x14 > > > > > [<c016a693>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x400/0x442 > > > > > [<c016a71b>] __get_free_pages+0xf/0x32 > > > > > [<c01865cf>] __kmalloc+0x28/0xfa > > > > > [<c023d96f>] ? __spin_lock_init+0x28/0x4d > > > > > [<c01f529d>] ext4_mb_init+0x392/0x460 > > > > > [<c01e99d2>] ext4_fill_super+0x1b96/0x2012 > > > > > [<c0239bc8>] ? snprintf+0x15/0x17 > > > > > [<c01c0b26>] ? disk_name+0x24/0x69 > > > > > [<c018ba63>] get_sb_bdev+0xda/0x117 > > > > > [<c01e6711>] ext4_get_sb+0x13/0x15 > > > > > [<c01e7e3c>] ? ext4_fill_super+0x0/0x2012 > > > > > [<c018ad2d>] vfs_kern_mount+0x3b/0x76 > > > > > [<c018adad>] do_kern_mount+0x33/0xbd > > > > > [<c019d0af>] do_mount+0x660/0x6b8 > > > > > [<c016a71b>] ? __get_free_pages+0xf/0x32 > > > > > [<c019d168>] sys_mount+0x61/0x99 > > > > > [<c0102908>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36 > > > > > Mem-Info: > > > > > DMA per-cpu: > > > > > CPU 0: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > > > Normal per-cpu: > > > > > CPU 0: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 0 > > > > > Active_anon:25471 active_file:22802 inactive_anon:25812 > > > > > inactive_file:33619 unevictable:2 dirty:2452 writeback:135 unstable:0 > > > > > free:4346 slab:4308 mapped:26038 pagetables:912 bounce:0 > > > > > DMA free:2060kB min:84kB low:104kB high:124kB active_anon:1660kB inactive_anon:1848kB active_file:144kB inactive_file:868kB unevictable:0kB present:15788kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no > > > > > lowmem_reserve[]: 0 489 489 > > > > > Normal free:15324kB min:2788kB low:3484kB high:4180kB active_anon:100224kB inactive_anon:101400kB active_file:91064kB inactive_file:133608kB unevictable:8kB present:501392kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no > > > > > lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 > > > > > DMA: 1*4kB 1*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2060kB > > > > > Normal: 1283*4kB 648*8kB 159*16kB 53*32kB 10*64kB 1*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 15324kB > > > > > 57947 total pagecache pages > > > > > 878 pages in swap cache > > > > > Swap cache stats: add 920, delete 42, find 11/11 > > > > > Free swap = 1016436kB > > > > > Total swap = 1020116kB > > > > > 131056 pages RAM > > > > > 4233 pages reserved > > > > > 90573 pages shared > > > > > 77286 pages non-shared > > > > > EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled > > > > > EXT4-fs (dm-2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode > > > > > > > > > > Thus it seems like the original bug is still there and any ideas how to > > > > > debug the problem further are appreciated.. > > > > > > > > > > The complete dmesg and kernel config are here: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/bart/ext4-paf.dmesg > > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/bart/ext4-paf.config > > > > > > > > This looks very similar to the kmemleak ext4 reports upon a mount. If > > > > it is the same issue, which from the trace it seems it is, then this > > > > is due to an extra kmalloc() allocation and this apparently will not > > > > get fixed on 2.6.31 due to the closeness of the merge window and the > > > > non-criticalness this issue has been deemed. > > > > > > > > A patch fix is part of the ext4-patchqueue > > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/ext4-patch-queue.git > > > > > > Thanks for the pointer but the page allocation failures that I hit seem > > > to be caused by the memory management itself and the ext4 issue fixed by: > > > > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/ext4-patch-queue.git?a=blob;f=memory-leak-fix-ext4_group_info-allocation;h=c919fff34e70ec85f96d1833f9ce460c451000de;hb=HEAD > > > > > > is a different problem (unrelated to this one). > > > > Here is another data point. > > > > This time it is an order-6 page allocation failure for rt2870sta > > (w/ upcoming driver changes) and Linus' tree from few days ago.. > > > > It's another high-order atomic allocation which is difficult to grant. > I didn't look closely, but is this the same type of thing - large allocation > failure during firmware loading? If so, is this during resume or is the > device being reloaded for some other reason? Just modprobing the driver on a system running for some time. > I suspect that there are going to be a few of these bugs cropping up > every so often where network devices are assuming large atomic > allocations will succeed because the "only time they happen" is during > boot but these days are happening at runtime for other reasons. I wouldn't go so far as calling a normal order-6 (256kB) allocation on 512MB machine with 1024MB swap a bug. Moreover such failures just never happened before 2.6.31-rc1. I don't know why people don't see it but for me it has a memory management regression and reliability issue written all over it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
