Badness with the kernel version 2.6.35-rc1-git1 running on P6 box
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: twl6040: fix wrong kfree in twl6040_remove and twl6040_codec_remove
Next: [PATCH 2/7] memcg: mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone() doesn't need sc.nodemask
From: Eric Dumazet on 16 Jul 2010 06:00 Le vendredi 16 juillet 2010 à 14:20 +0530, divya a écrit : > Hi , > > With the latest kernel version 2.6.35-rc5-git1(2f7989efd4398) running on power(p6) box came across the following > call trace > > Call Trace: > [c000000006a0e800] [c000000000011c30] .show_stack+0x6c/0x16c (unreliable) > [c000000006a0e8b0] [c00000000012129c] .__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x6a0/0x75c > [c000000006a0ea30] [c0000000001527cc] .alloc_pages_current+0xc4/0x104 > [c000000006a0ead0] [c00000000015b1a0] .new_slab+0xe0/0x314 > [c000000006a0eb70] [c00000000015b6fc] .__slab_alloc+0x328/0x644 > [c000000006a0ec50] [c00000000015cc34] .__kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x114/0x194 > [c000000006a0ed00] [c000000000599f6c] .__alloc_skb+0x94/0x180 > [c000000006a0edb0] [c00000000059af5c] .__netdev_alloc_skb+0x3c/0x74 > [c000000006a0ee30] [c0000000004f9480] .ehea_refill_rq_def+0xf8/0x2d0 > [c000000006a0ef30] [c0000000004fab8c] .ehea_up+0x5b8/0x69c > [c000000006a0f040] [c0000000004facd4] .ehea_open+0x64/0x118 > [c000000006a0f0e0] [c0000000005a6e9c] .__dev_open+0x100/0x168 > [c000000006a0f170] [c0000000005a3ac0] .__dev_change_flags+0x10c/0x1ac > [c000000006a0f210] [c0000000005a6d44] .dev_change_flags+0x24/0x7c > [c000000006a0f2a0] [c0000000005b50b4] .do_setlink+0x31c/0x750 > [c000000006a0f3b0] [c0000000005b6724] .rtnl_newlink+0x388/0x618 > [c000000006a0f5f0] [c0000000005b6350] .rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x268/0x2b4 > [c000000006a0f6a0] [c0000000005cfdc0] .netlink_rcv_skb+0x74/0x108 > [c000000006a0f730] [c0000000005b60c4] .rtnetlink_rcv+0x38/0x5c > [c000000006a0f7c0] [c0000000005cf8c8] .netlink_unicast+0x318/0x3f4 > [c000000006a0f890] [c0000000005d05b4] .netlink_sendmsg+0x2d0/0x310 > [c000000006a0f970] [c00000000058e1e8] .sock_sendmsg+0xd4/0x110 > [c000000006a0fb50] [c00000000058e514] .SyS_sendmsg+0x1f4/0x288 > [c000000006a0fd70] [c00000000058c2b8] .SyS_socketcall+0x214/0x280 > [c000000006a0fe30] [c0000000000085b4] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40 > Mem-Info: > Node 0 DMA per-cpu: > CPU 0: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > CPU 1: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > CPU 2: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > CPU 3: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > active_anon:50 inactive_anon:260 isolated_anon:0 > active_file:159 inactive_file:139 isolated_file:0 > unevictable:0 dirty:2 writeback:1 unstable:0 > free:16 slab_reclaimable:66 slab_unreclaimable:502 > mapped:120 shmem:2 pagetables:37 bounce:0 > Node 0 DMA free:1024kB min:1408kB low:1728kB high:2112kB active_anon:3200kB inactive_anon:16640kB active_file:10176kB inactive_file:8896kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:130944kB mlocked:0kB dirty:128kB writeback:64kB mapped:7680kB shmem:128kB slab_reclaimable:4224kB slab_unreclaimable:32128kB kernel_stack:2528kB pagetables:2368kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no > lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 > Node 0 DMA: 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB 0*8192kB 0*16384kB = 0kB > 496 total pagecache pages > 178 pages in swap cache > Swap cache stats: add 780, delete 602, find 467/551 > Free swap = 1027904kB > Total swap = 1044160kB > 2048 pages RAM > 683 pages reserved > 582 pages shared > 1075 pages non-shared > SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x20) > cache: kmalloc-16384, object size: 16384, buffer size: 16384, default order: 2, min order: 0 > node 0: slabs: 28, objs: 292, free: 0 > ip: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x8020 > Call Trace: > [c000000006a0eb40] [c000000000011c30] .show_stack+0x6c/0x16c (unreliable) > [c000000006a0ebf0] [c00000000012129c] .__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x6a0/0x75c > [c000000006a0ed70] [c0000000001527cc] .alloc_pages_current+0xc4/0x104 > [c000000006a0ee10] [c00000000011fca4] .__get_free_pages+0x18/0x90 > [c000000006a0ee90] [c0000000004f7058] .ehea_get_stats+0x4c/0x1bc > [c000000006a0ef30] [c0000000005a0a04] .dev_get_stats+0x38/0x64 > [c000000006a0efc0] [c0000000005b456c] .rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x35c/0x85c > [c000000006a0f150] [c0000000005b5920] .rtmsg_ifinfo+0x164/0x204 > [c000000006a0f210] [c0000000005a6d6c] .dev_change_flags+0x4c/0x7c > [c000000006a0f2a0] [c0000000005b50b4] .do_setlink+0x31c/0x750 > [c000000006a0f3b0] [c0000000005b6724] .rtnl_newlink+0x388/0x618 > [c000000006a0f5f0] [c0000000005b6350] .rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x268/0x2b4 > [c000000006a0f6a0] [c0000000005cfdc0] .netlink_rcv_skb+0x74/0x108 > [c000000006a0f730] [c0000000005b60c4] .rtnetlink_rcv+0x38/0x5c > [c000000006a0f7c0] [c0000000005cf8c8] .netlink_unicast+0x318/0x3f4 > [c000000006a0f890] [c0000000005d05b4] .netlink_sendmsg+0x2d0/0x310 > [c000000006a0f970] [c00000000058e1e8] .sock_sendmsg+0xd4/0x110 > [c000000006a0fb50] [c00000000058e514] .SyS_sendmsg+0x1f4/0x288 > [c000000006a0fd70] [c00000000058c2b8] .SyS_socketcall+0x214/0x280 > [c000000006a0fe30] [c0000000000085b4] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40 > Mem-Info: > Node 0 DMA per-cpu: > CPU 0: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > CPU 1: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > CPU 2: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > CPU 3: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > The mainline 2.6.35-rc5 worked fine. Maybe you were lucky with 2.6.35-rc5 Anyway ehea should not use GFP_ATOMIC in its ehea_get_stats() method, called in process context, but GFP_KERNEL. Another patch is needed for ehea_refill_rq_def() as well. [PATCH] ehea: ehea_get_stats() should use GFP_KERNEL ehea_get_stats() is called in process context and should use GFP_KERNEL allocation instead of GFP_ATOMIC. Clearing stats at beginning of ehea_get_stats() is racy in case of concurrent stat readers. get_stats() can also use netdev net_device_stats, instead of a private copy. Reported-by: divya <dipraksh(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet(a)gmail.com> --- drivers/net/ehea/ehea.h | 1 - drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c | 6 ++---- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Eric Dumazet on 16 Jul 2010 08:30 Le vendredi 16 juillet 2010 à 11:56 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit : > [PATCH] ehea: ehea_get_stats() should use GFP_KERNEL > > ehea_get_stats() is called in process context and should use GFP_KERNEL > allocation instead of GFP_ATOMIC. > > Clearing stats at beginning of ehea_get_stats() is racy in case of > concurrent stat readers. > > get_stats() can also use netdev net_device_stats, instead of a private > copy. > > Reported-by: divya <dipraksh(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet(a)gmail.com> > --- > drivers/net/ehea/ehea.h | 1 - > drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c | 6 ++---- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Hmm, net-next-2.6 contains following patch : commit 3d8009c780ee90fccb5c171caf30aff839f13547 Author: Brian King <brking(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed Jun 30 11:59:12 2010 +0000 ehea: Allocate stats buffer with GFP_KERNEL Since ehea_get_stats calls ehea_h_query_ehea_port, which can sleep, we can also sleep when allocating a page in this function. This fixes some memory allocation failure warnings seen under low memory conditions. Signed-off-by: Brian King <brking(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem(a)davemloft.net> diff --git a/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c b/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c index 8b92acb..3beba70 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c +++ b/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ static struct net_device_stats *ehea_get_stats(struct net_device *dev) memset(stats, 0, sizeof(*stats)); - cb2 = (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC); + cb2 = (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_KERNEL); if (!cb2) { ehea_error("no mem for cb2"); goto out; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Dave Hansen on 16 Jul 2010 13:40 On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:56 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x20) > > cache: kmalloc-16384, object size: 16384, buffer size: 16384, > default order: 2, min order: 0 > > node 0: slabs: 28, objs: 292, free: 0 > > ip: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x8020 > > Call Trace: > > [c000000006a0eb40] [c000000000011c30] .show_stack+0x6c/0x16c (unreliable) > > [c000000006a0ebf0] [c00000000012129c] .__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x6a0/0x75c > > [c000000006a0ed70] [c0000000001527cc] .alloc_pages_current+0xc4/0x104 > > [c000000006a0ee10] [c00000000011fca4] .__get_free_pages+0x18/0x90 > > [c000000006a0ee90] [c0000000004f7058] .ehea_get_stats+0x4c/0x1bc > > [c000000006a0ef30] [c0000000005a0a04] .dev_get_stats+0x38/0x64 > > [c000000006a0efc0] [c0000000005b456c] .rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x35c/0x85c > > [c000000006a0f150] [c0000000005b5920] .rtmsg_ifinfo+0x164/0x204 > > [c000000006a0f210] [c0000000005a6d6c] .dev_change_flags+0x4c/0x7c > > [c000000006a0f2a0] [c0000000005b50b4] .do_setlink+0x31c/0x750 > > [c000000006a0f3b0] [c0000000005b6724] .rtnl_newlink+0x388/0x618 > > [c000000006a0f5f0] [c0000000005b6350] .rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x268/0x2b4 > > [c000000006a0f6a0] [c0000000005cfdc0] .netlink_rcv_skb+0x74/0x108 > > [c000000006a0f730] [c0000000005b60c4] .rtnetlink_rcv+0x38/0x5c > > [c000000006a0f7c0] [c0000000005cf8c8] .netlink_unicast+0x318/0x3f4 > > [c000000006a0f890] [c0000000005d05b4] .netlink_sendmsg+0x2d0/0x310 > > [c000000006a0f970] [c00000000058e1e8] .sock_sendmsg+0xd4/0x110 > > [c000000006a0fb50] [c00000000058e514] .SyS_sendmsg+0x1f4/0x288 > > [c000000006a0fd70] [c00000000058c2b8] .SyS_socketcall+0x214/0x280 > > [c000000006a0fe30] [c0000000000085b4] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40 > > Mem-Info: > > Node 0 DMA per-cpu: > > CPU 0: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > CPU 1: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > CPU 2: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > CPU 3: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > > The mainline 2.6.35-rc5 worked fine. > > Maybe you were lucky with 2.6.35-rc5 > > Anyway ehea should not use GFP_ATOMIC in its ehea_get_stats() method, > called in process context, but GFP_KERNEL. > > Another patch is needed for ehea_refill_rq_def() as well. You're right that this is abusing GFP_ATOMIC. But is, this is just a normal "GFP_ATOMIC" allocation failure? "SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1" seems like a somewhat inappropriate error message for that. It isn't immediately obvious where the -1 is coming from. Does it truly mean "allocate from any node" here, or is that a buglet in and of itself? -- Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: David Rientjes on 16 Jul 2010 15:20 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x20) > > > cache: kmalloc-16384, object size: 16384, buffer size: 16384, > > default order: 2, min order: 0 > > > node 0: slabs: 28, objs: 292, free: 0 > > > ip: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x8020 > > > Call Trace: > > > [c000000006a0eb40] [c000000000011c30] .show_stack+0x6c/0x16c (unreliable) > > > [c000000006a0ebf0] [c00000000012129c] .__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x6a0/0x75c > > > [c000000006a0ed70] [c0000000001527cc] .alloc_pages_current+0xc4/0x104 > > > [c000000006a0ee10] [c00000000011fca4] .__get_free_pages+0x18/0x90 > > > [c000000006a0ee90] [c0000000004f7058] .ehea_get_stats+0x4c/0x1bc > > > [c000000006a0ef30] [c0000000005a0a04] .dev_get_stats+0x38/0x64 > > > [c000000006a0efc0] [c0000000005b456c] .rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x35c/0x85c > > > [c000000006a0f150] [c0000000005b5920] .rtmsg_ifinfo+0x164/0x204 > > > [c000000006a0f210] [c0000000005a6d6c] .dev_change_flags+0x4c/0x7c > > > [c000000006a0f2a0] [c0000000005b50b4] .do_setlink+0x31c/0x750 > > > [c000000006a0f3b0] [c0000000005b6724] .rtnl_newlink+0x388/0x618 > > > [c000000006a0f5f0] [c0000000005b6350] .rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x268/0x2b4 > > > [c000000006a0f6a0] [c0000000005cfdc0] .netlink_rcv_skb+0x74/0x108 > > > [c000000006a0f730] [c0000000005b60c4] .rtnetlink_rcv+0x38/0x5c > > > [c000000006a0f7c0] [c0000000005cf8c8] .netlink_unicast+0x318/0x3f4 > > > [c000000006a0f890] [c0000000005d05b4] .netlink_sendmsg+0x2d0/0x310 > > > [c000000006a0f970] [c00000000058e1e8] .sock_sendmsg+0xd4/0x110 > > > [c000000006a0fb50] [c00000000058e514] .SyS_sendmsg+0x1f4/0x288 > > > [c000000006a0fd70] [c00000000058c2b8] .SyS_socketcall+0x214/0x280 > > > [c000000006a0fe30] [c0000000000085b4] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40 > > > Mem-Info: > > > Node 0 DMA per-cpu: > > > CPU 0: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > CPU 1: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > CPU 2: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > CPU 3: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > > > > The mainline 2.6.35-rc5 worked fine. > > > > Maybe you were lucky with 2.6.35-rc5 > > > > Anyway ehea should not use GFP_ATOMIC in its ehea_get_stats() method, > > called in process context, but GFP_KERNEL. > > > > Another patch is needed for ehea_refill_rq_def() as well. > > You're right that this is abusing GFP_ATOMIC. > > But is, this is just a normal "GFP_ATOMIC" allocation failure? "SLUB: > Unable to allocate memory on node -1" seems like a somewhat > inappropriate error message for that. > The slub message is seperate and doesn't generate a call trace, even though it is a (minimum) order-0 GFP_ATOMIC allocation as well. The page allocation failure is seperate instance that is calling the page allocator, not the slab allocator. > It isn't immediately obvious where the -1 is coming from. Does it truly > mean "allocate from any node" here, or is that a buglet in and of > itself? > Yes, slub uses -1 to indicate that the allocation need not come from a specific node. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: David Miller on 18 Jul 2010 18:00
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:20:42 +0200 > Le vendredi 16 juillet 2010 � 11:56 +0200, Eric Dumazet a �crit : > >> [PATCH] ehea: ehea_get_stats() should use GFP_KERNEL >> >> ehea_get_stats() is called in process context and should use GFP_KERNEL >> allocation instead of GFP_ATOMIC. >> >> Clearing stats at beginning of ehea_get_stats() is racy in case of >> concurrent stat readers. >> >> get_stats() can also use netdev net_device_stats, instead of a private >> copy. >> >> Reported-by: divya <dipraksh(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet(a)gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/ehea/ehea.h | 1 - >> drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c | 6 ++---- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> > > Hmm, net-next-2.6 contains following patch : If people think ehea usage is ubiquitous enough to deserve a backport of this to net-2.6, fine. But personally I don't think it's worth it. Can someone close the kernel bugzilla 16406 created for this bug? This patch we have already obviously would fix this issue. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |