Prev: PROBLEM: CONFIG_NO_HZ could cause software timeouts
Next: bfa: Brocade BFA FC SCSI driver (bfad)
From: Mel Gorman on 3 Sep 2009 08:50
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 11:02:14AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Bartlomiej
> Zolnierkiewicz<bzolnier(a)gmail.com> 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.
>

I suspect the more pressing concern is why is this kmalloc() resulting in
an order-5 allocation request? What size is the buffer being requested?
Was that expected? What is the contents of /proc/slabinfo in case a buffer
that should have required order-1 or order-2 is using a higher order for
some reason.

> A patch fix is part of the ext4-patchqueue
> http://repo.or.cz/w/ext4-patch-queue.git
>

p.s. I'm will be offline until Tuesday so will not be initially very
responsive.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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: Theodore Tso on 5 Sep 2009 10:30
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:49:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > 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.

No, it's a different problem.

> I suspect the more pressing concern is why is this kmalloc() resulting in
> an order-5 allocation request? What size is the buffer being requested?
> Was that expected? What is the contents of /proc/slabinfo in case a buffer
> that should have required order-1 or order-2 is using a higher order for
> some reason.

It's allocating 68,000 bytes for the mb_history structure, which is
used for debugging purposes. That's why it's optional and we continue
if it's not allocated. We should fix it to use vmalloc() and I'm
inclined to turn it off by default since it's not worth the overhead,
and most ext4 users won't find it useful or interesting.

- Ted
--
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: Mel Gorman on 8 Sep 2009 07:10
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:28:37AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:49:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> No, it's a different problem.
>
> > I suspect the more pressing concern is why is this kmalloc() resulting in
> > an order-5 allocation request? What size is the buffer being requested?
> > Was that expected? What is the contents of /proc/slabinfo in case a buffer
> > that should have required order-1 or order-2 is using a higher order for
> > some reason.
>
> It's allocating 68,000 bytes for the mb_history structure, which is
> used for debugging purposes. That's why it's optional and we continue
> if it's not allocated. We should fix it to use vmalloc()

You could call with kmalloc(FLAGS|GFP_NOWARN) with a fallback to
vmalloc() and a disable if vmalloc() fails as well. Maybe check out what
kernel/profile.c#profile_init() to allocate a large buffer and do something
similar?

> and I'm
> inclined to turn it off by default since it's not worth the overhead,
> and most ext4 users won't find it useful or interesting.
>

I can't comment as I don't know what sort of debugging it's useful for.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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: Simon Kitching on 8 Sep 2009 17:00
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 12:00 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:28:37AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:49:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > No, it's a different problem.
> >
> > > I suspect the more pressing concern is why is this kmalloc() resulting in
> > > an order-5 allocation request? What size is the buffer being requested?
> > > Was that expected? What is the contents of /proc/slabinfo in case a buffer
> > > that should have required order-1 or order-2 is using a higher order for
> > > some reason.
> >
> > It's allocating 68,000 bytes for the mb_history structure, which is
> > used for debugging purposes. That's why it's optional and we continue
> > if it's not allocated. We should fix it to use vmalloc()
>
> You could call with kmalloc(FLAGS|GFP_NOWARN) with a fallback to
> vmalloc() and a disable if vmalloc() fails as well. Maybe check out what
> kernel/profile.c#profile_init() to allocate a large buffer and do something
> similar?
>
> > and I'm
> > inclined to turn it off by default since it's not worth the overhead,
> > and most ext4 users won't find it useful or interesting.
> >
>
> I can't comment as I don't know what sort of debugging it's useful for.
>

Perhaps this is a suitable use for the new proposed flex_array? From an
initial glance, I can't see why the allocated memory has to be
contiguous..

http://lwn.net/Articles/345273/

Cheers, Simon

--
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: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz on 20 Sep 2009 17:10
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(a)gmail.com> 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..

ifconfig: page allocation failure. order:6, mode:0x8020
Pid: 4752, comm: ifconfig Tainted: G WC 2.6.31-04082-g1824090-dirty #80
Call Trace:
[<c03996f2>] ? printk+0xf/0x15
[<c016b841>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x41d/0x462
[<c010681e>] dma_generic_alloc_coherent+0x53/0xbd
[<c02f83aa>] hcd_buffer_alloc+0xdb/0xe8
[<c01067cb>] ? dma_generic_alloc_coherent+0x0/0xbd
[<c02ee2d6>] usb_buffer_alloc+0x16/0x1d
[<e121b627>] NICInitTransmit+0xe2/0x7e4 [rt2870sta]
[<e121bfb1>] RTMPAllocTxRxRingMemory+0x11c/0x17b [rt2870sta]
[<e11f0960>] rt28xx_init+0xa5/0x3f8 [rt2870sta]
[<e121194a>] rt28xx_open+0x53/0xa2 [rt2870sta]
[<e1211b77>] MainVirtualIF_open+0x23/0xf6 [rt2870sta]
[<c03383a4>] dev_open+0x86/0xbb
[<c0337b1a>] dev_change_flags+0x96/0x147
[<c036e9cb>] devinet_ioctl+0x20f/0x4f8
[<c036fc8f>] inet_ioctl+0x8e/0xa7
[<c032ab50>] sock_ioctl+0x1c9/0x1ed
[<c032a987>] ? sock_ioctl+0x0/0x1ed
[<c0195732>] vfs_ioctl+0x18/0x71
[<c0195cbb>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x491/0x4cf
[<c01779d6>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x242/0x4ff
[<c0119609>] ? do_page_fault+0x102/0x292
[<c0140721>] ? up_read+0x16/0x29
[<c0195d27>] sys_ioctl+0x2e/0x48
[<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: 84
Active_anon:14664 active_file:30057 inactive_anon:31744
inactive_file:29940 unevictable:2 dirty:11 writeback:0 unstable:0
free:5421 slab:4037 mapped:7781 pagetables:963 bounce:0
DMA free:2060kB min:84kB low:104kB high:124kB active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:124kB active_file:3284kB inactive_file:972kB unevictable:0kB present:15788kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
lowmem_reserve[]: 0 489 489
Normal free:19624kB min:2788kB low:3484kB high:4180kB active_anon:58656kB inactive_anon:126852kB active_file:116944kB inactive_file:118788kB unevictable:8kB present:501392kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
DMA: 3*4kB 0*8kB 2*16kB 1*32kB 1*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2060kB
Normal: 2180*4kB 625*8kB 303*16kB 33*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 19624kB
64568 total pagecache pages
3652 pages in swap cache
Swap cache stats: add 21642, delete 17990, find 4906/6079
Free swap = 981700kB
Total swap = 1020116kB
131056 pages RAM
4262 pages reserved
91941 pages shared
60834 pages non-shared
<-- ERROR in Alloc TX TxContext[0] HTTX_BUFFER !!
<-- RTMPAllocTxRxRingMemory, Status=3
ERROR!!! RTMPAllocDMAMemory failed, Status[=0x00000003]
!!! rt28xx Initialized fail !!!
--
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/
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: PROBLEM: CONFIG_NO_HZ could cause software timeouts
Next: bfa: Brocade BFA FC SCSI driver (bfad)