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: <s6nmxhft4wk.fsf@blaulicht.switch.brux>
Date:	Sat, 18 Jun 2011 19:39:55 +0200
From:	Stephan Boettcher <boettcher@...sik.uni-kiel.de>
To:	Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com>
Cc:	<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

Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com> writes:

> 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.

:-O ...  my puny 20TB ext4 filesystem did not do something like
this, yet.

> Cheers, Andreas--

-- 
Stephan 
--
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