A bit of followup (again sorry for topposting).. I began looking around for the first line in the stacktrace __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x757/0x8d0 and found a thread in the Linux-Kernel mailinglist: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1305.3/01761.html.
This thread left me wondering a bit, and since I'm not a C[++]-programmer, I've never dealt with handling memory allocation and the intricies it involves, so I began wondering what and how the order was affecting memory allocation.. All the errors I've seen in our logs are logged as order-1 failures, and as far as I can understand an order-1 allocation error is not necessarily a dead end. According to https://www.kernel.org/doc/gorman/html/understand/understand009.html there should be a fallback to a lower-order allocation when a higher-order allocation is requested and fails. According to the same Linux-Kernel thread some networkdrivers are buggy, and since this machine contains 6 Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM5709 1000Base-T interfaces I am currently looking into upgrading the driver. Regards, Jens Dueholm Christensen Survey IT -----Original Message----- From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 8:57 AM To: Jens Dueholm Christensen Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Page allocation failure On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:47:56AM +0000, Jens Dueholm Christensen wrote: > Hi, sorry for topposting, but Outlook is notoriously bad at inlining.. > In reply to Lukas Tribus: > > Uptime is some 200 days > > jedc@web8:/home/jedc>$ free -m > total used free shared buffers cached > Mem: 48253 47843 410 0 2747 24841 > -/+ buffers/cache: 20254 27998 > Swap: 32767 368 32399 > > Acording to RHEL network, the kernel I'm running now is the latest available, > so upgrading is not really an option at this time. > > Alas a reboot is not really an option right now (downtime scheduling, > announcement etc etc..), but I will prioritize it in our plans. And better not reboot before the Red Hat support collects what the need to feed the report. Willy
