linux-kernel - Re: Vanilla-Kernel 3 - page allocation failure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Philipp Herz - Profihost AG <p.herz@...fihost.ag>
cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Vanilla-Kernel 3 - page allocation failure

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Philipp Herz - Profihost AG wrote:

> we have recompiled the kernel of one machine with CONFIG_SLUB instead of
> CONFIG_SLAB, but it is showing similar message.
> 
> Now it's showing failure at "order:5, mode:0x4020".
> 
> Call trace can be found at:
> * http://pastebin.com/uGJiwvG1
> 
> Comparing kernel 2.6.32 (mm/page_alloc.c) there seams to be the same way of
> dealing with page allocation.
> 
> Do you have an idea why these (warning) messages do never appear running
> 2.6.32?
> 

Do you have CONFIG_COMPACTION enabled?  Perhaps this is a difference in 
the deprecation of lumpy reclaim between 2.6.35 and 2.6.38 and 
defragmentation being done by memory compaction instead.

It won't be triggered synchronously in this context since it's a 
GFP_ATOMIC allocation, which is why it emits a page allocation failure in 
the first place, but it will show whether defragmentation is the issue or 
you're just simply low on memory.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/