linux-ext4 - Re: 2.6.39.1: Intel I340-T4: irq/64-eth3-TxR: page allocation failure. order:1, mode:0x20

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

Message-Id: <C9702C53-7906-46F5-B635-3ED698A394C2@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:05:16 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com>
To:	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
Cc:	Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-net@...r.kernel.org" <linux-net@...r.kernel.org>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.39.1: Intel I340-T4: irq/64-eth3-TxR: page allocation failure. order:1, mode:0x20

On 2011-06-18, at 10:19 AM, Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com> wrote:
> On 11-06-17 09:16 PM, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>> 
>> Kernel 2.6.39.1, x86_64.
>> Has anyone seen a page allocation failure on a NIC before?
> ..
>> [60295.925691] irq/64-eth3-TxR: page allocation failure. order:1, mode:0x20
>> [60295.945328] Pid: 2299, comm: irq/64-eth3-TxR Not tainted 2.6.39.1 #1
>> [60295.945329] Call Trace:
>> [60295.945330]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff810882f6>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x606/0x890
>> [60295.945341]  [<ffffffff810b1435>] ? cache_alloc_refill+0x2c5/0x530
>> [60295.945343]  [<ffffffff810b180b>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x7b/0xa0
>> [60295.945347]  [<ffffffff815031ac>] ? sk_prot_alloc.clone.35+0x3c/0x120
>> [60295.945349]  [<ffffffff81503320>] ? sk_clone+0x10/0x2b0
>> [60295.945352]  [<ffffffff815580bb>] 
> 
> Not on a NIC, but also with 2.6.39:
> 
> [35850.612899] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI disk
> [35943.085264] mount: page allocation failure. order:5, mode:0xc0d0
> [35943.085277] Pid: 14228, comm: mount Not tainted 2.6.39 #10
> [35943.085284] Call Trace:
> [35943.085306]  [<ffffffff8106fa96>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x710/0x74d
> [35943.085322]  [<ffffffff8106fb5b>] ? __get_free_pages+0x12/0x50
> [35943.085335]  [<ffffffff810f9120>] ? ext4_fill_super+0xe4f/0x20ff
> [35943.085347]  [<ffffffff810f82d1>] ? ext4_remount+0x40e/0x40e

There are a few places in the ext4 mount that are doing large allocations. In some places they fall back to vmalloc, so they should really be done with GFP_NOWARN.

 A few places don't yet fall back to vmalloc(), which is a problem with fragmented memory or very large filesystems. We were trying to test a 192TB ext4 filesystem, but were unable to mount it without patching the kernel.

Cheers, Andreas--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html