Re: [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure...
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:20:59 + "Daniel J Blueman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> I'm still hitting this with e1000e on 2.6.25-rc2, 10 times again. > are you sure? I don't think that's the case and you're seeing e1000 dumps > here... Indeed so! I thought I moved to e1000e a time ago, but forgot that I had moved back due to lack of support for 82566DC, added since. I'm not seeing any related messages with e1000e after a few days' uptime, so all looks well... Thanks again, Daniel > >> It's clearly non-fatal, but then do we expect it to occur? > >> > >> Daniel > >> > >> --- [dmesg] > >> > >> [ 1250.822786] swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x4020 > >> [ 1250.822786] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc2-119 #2 > >> [ 1250.822786] > >> [ 1250.822786] Call Trace: > >> [ 1250.822786][] __alloc_pages+0x34e/0x3a0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] __slab_alloc+0x102/0x3d0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x7b/0xc0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] __alloc_skb+0x6f/0x160 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_alloc_rx_buffers+0x1ed/0x260 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x22a/0x330 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_clean+0x1e1/0x540 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? tick_program_event+0x45/0x70 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] net_rx_action+0x9a/0x150 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] __do_softirq+0x74/0xf0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] do_softirq+0x3d/0x80 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] irq_exit+0x85/0x90 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] do_IRQ+0x85/0x100 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? mwait_idle+0x0/0x50 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa > >> [ 1250.822786][] ? mwait_idle+0x45/0x50 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? enter_idle+0x22/0x30 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? cpu_idle+0x74/0xa0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? rest_init+0x55/0x60 > > > > They're regularly reported with e1000 too - I don't think aything really > > changed. > > > > e1000 has this crazy problem where because of a cascade of follies (mainly > > borked hardware) it has to do a 32kb allocation for a 9kb(?) packet. It > > would be sad if that was carried over into e1000e? > > can't be, I personally removed that code. > > for MTU > 1500 e1000e uses a plain normal sized SKB. for anything bigger > e1000e > uses pages. > > so I don't see how this bug could still be showing up for e1000e at all. The > large > skb receive code is all gone (literally, removed). > > *please* rmmod e1000; modprobe e1000e and show the dumps again so we know > for sure > that we're not looking at e1000 dumps. > > short fix: increase ring size for e1000 with `modprobe e1000 > RxDescriptors=4096` > (or use ethtool) and `echo -n 8192 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes` or > something > like that. > > what nic hardware is this on? lspci? > > Auke > -- Daniel J Blueman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure...
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:20:59 + "Daniel J Blueman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> I'm still hitting this with e1000e on 2.6.25-rc2, 10 times again. are you sure? I don't think that's the case and you're seeing e1000 dumps here... >> It's clearly non-fatal, but then do we expect it to occur? >> >> Daniel >> >> --- [dmesg] >> >> [ 1250.822786] swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x4020 >> [ 1250.822786] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc2-119 #2 >> [ 1250.822786] >> [ 1250.822786] Call Trace: >> [ 1250.822786][] __alloc_pages+0x34e/0x3a0 >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 >> [ 1250.822786] [] __slab_alloc+0x102/0x3d0 >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 >> [ 1250.822786] [] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x7b/0xc0 >> [ 1250.822786] [] __alloc_skb+0x6f/0x160 >> [ 1250.822786] [] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 >> [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_alloc_rx_buffers+0x1ed/0x260 >> [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x22a/0x330 >> [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_clean+0x1e1/0x540 >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? tick_program_event+0x45/0x70 >> [ 1250.822786] [] net_rx_action+0x9a/0x150 >> [ 1250.822786] [] __do_softirq+0x74/0xf0 >> [ 1250.822786] [] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 >> [ 1250.822786] [] do_softirq+0x3d/0x80 >> [ 1250.822786] [] irq_exit+0x85/0x90 >> [ 1250.822786] [] do_IRQ+0x85/0x100 >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? mwait_idle+0x0/0x50 >> [ 1250.822786] [] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa >> [ 1250.822786][] ? mwait_idle+0x45/0x50 >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? enter_idle+0x22/0x30 >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? cpu_idle+0x74/0xa0 >> [ 1250.822786] [] ? rest_init+0x55/0x60 > > They're regularly reported with e1000 too - I don't think aything really > changed. > > e1000 has this crazy problem where because of a cascade of follies (mainly > borked hardware) it has to do a 32kb allocation for a 9kb(?) packet. It > would be sad if that was carried over into e1000e? can't be, I personally removed that code. for MTU > 1500 e1000e uses a plain normal sized SKB. for anything bigger e1000e uses pages. so I don't see how this bug could still be showing up for e1000e at all. The large skb receive code is all gone (literally, removed). *please* rmmod e1000; modprobe e1000e and show the dumps again so we know for sure that we're not looking at e1000 dumps. short fix: increase ring size for e1000 with `modprobe e1000 RxDescriptors=4096` (or use ethtool) and `echo -n 8192 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes` or something like that. what nic hardware is this on? lspci? Auke -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:20:59 + "Daniel J Blueman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still hitting this with e1000e on 2.6.25-rc2, 10 times again. > > It's clearly non-fatal, but then do we expect it to occur? > > Daniel > > --- [dmesg] > > [ 1250.822786] swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x4020 > [ 1250.822786] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc2-119 #2 > [ 1250.822786] > [ 1250.822786] Call Trace: > [ 1250.822786][] __alloc_pages+0x34e/0x3a0 > [ 1250.822786] [] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > [ 1250.822786] [] __slab_alloc+0x102/0x3d0 > [ 1250.822786] [] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > [ 1250.822786] [] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x7b/0xc0 > [ 1250.822786] [] __alloc_skb+0x6f/0x160 > [ 1250.822786] [] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_alloc_rx_buffers+0x1ed/0x260 > [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x22a/0x330 > [ 1250.822786] [] e1000_clean+0x1e1/0x540 > [ 1250.822786] [] ? tick_program_event+0x45/0x70 > [ 1250.822786] [] net_rx_action+0x9a/0x150 > [ 1250.822786] [] __do_softirq+0x74/0xf0 > [ 1250.822786] [] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 > [ 1250.822786] [] do_softirq+0x3d/0x80 > [ 1250.822786] [] irq_exit+0x85/0x90 > [ 1250.822786] [] do_IRQ+0x85/0x100 > [ 1250.822786] [] ? mwait_idle+0x0/0x50 > [ 1250.822786] [] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa > [ 1250.822786][] ? mwait_idle+0x45/0x50 > [ 1250.822786] [] ? enter_idle+0x22/0x30 > [ 1250.822786] [] ? cpu_idle+0x74/0xa0 > [ 1250.822786] [] ? rest_init+0x55/0x60 They're regularly reported with e1000 too - I don't think aything really changed. e1000 has this crazy problem where because of a cascade of follies (mainly borked hardware) it has to do a 32kb allocation for a 9kb(?) packet. It would be sad if that was carried over into e1000e? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
