netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 16083] New: swapper: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:02:35 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 16083] New: swapper: Page allocation failure

On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:55:12 GMT
bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org wrote:

> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16083
> 
>            Summary: swapper: Page allocation failure
>            Product: Memory Management
>            Version: 2.5
>     Kernel Version: 2.6.34
>           Platform: All
>         OS/Version: Linux
>               Tree: Mainline
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P1
>          Component: Other
>         AssignedTo: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
>         ReportedBy: sgunderson@...foot.com
>         Regression: No
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Since upgrading from a Q9450 to 2xE5520 (and upgrading from 2.6.34-rc-something
> to 2.6.34), I've started seeing these:
> 
> [605882.372418] swapper: page allocation failure. order:2, mode:0x4020
> [605882.378981] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.34 #1
> [605882.384617] Call Trace:
> [605882.387499]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff81096d5a>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x5b0/0x629
> [605882.395068]  [<ffffffff81096de5>] __get_free_pages+0x12/0x4f
> [605882.401103]  [<ffffffff810bdeb4>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x4c/0x156
> [605882.407817]  [<ffffffff81245986>] ? sock_alloc_send_pskb+0xdd/0x32d
> [605882.414556]  [<ffffffff8124a515>] __alloc_skb+0x66/0x15b

I wonder if we should switch __alloc_skb() over to __GFP_NOWARN. 
People keep on reporting events such as the above, and nobody's
getting any value from this.

Downsides:

- the change would tend to deprive MM developers of prompt "hey you
  broke it again" notifications.

- if a system is getting enough allocation failures to impact
  throughput, the operators won't *know* that it's happening, and so
  they won't make the changes necessary to reduce the frequency of
  memory allocation failures.

If these are likely to be a problem, perhaps networking could provide
some other form of "hey, you keep on running out of memory"
notification, if it doesn't already do so.

Thoughts?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html