[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020906240955h5e26a248scc61439c1ca36023@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:24 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from_freelist
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:07:53 -0700 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
>> a new item is coming up fast in the kerneloops.org stats, and it's new
>> in 2.6.31-rc;
>>
>> http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek.php?search=get_page_from_freelist
>>
>> it's this warning in mm/page_alloc.c:
>>
>> * __GFP_NOFAIL is not to be used in new code.
>> *
>> * All __GFP_NOFAIL callers should be fixed so that they
>> * properly detect and handle allocation failures.
>> *
>> * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
>> * allocate greater than single-page units with
>> * __GFP_NOFAIL.
>> */
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 0);
>>
>>
>> typical backtraces look like
>>
>> get_page_from_freelist
>> __alloc_pages_nodemask
>> alloc_pages_current
>> alloc_slab_page
>> new_slab
>> __slab_alloc
>> kmem_cache_alloc_notrace
>> start_this_handle
>> jbd2_journal_start
>>
>> and
>>
>> get_page_from_freelist
>> __alloc_pages_nodemask
>> alloc_pages_current
>> alloc_slab_page
>> new_slab
>> __slab_alloc
>> kmem_cache_alloc_notrace
>> start_this_handle
>> journal_start
>> ext3_journal_start_sb
>> ext3_journal_start
>> ext3_dirty_inode
>>
>> but there are some other ones as well at the url above.
>>
>>
>> git blame shows that
>>
>> commit dab48dab37d2770824420d1e01730a107fade1aa
>> Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Date: Tue Jun 16 15:32:37 2009 -0700
>>
>> introduced this WARN_ON.....
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Andrew Morton<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Well yes. Using GFP_NOFAIL on a higher-order allocation is bad. This
> patch is there to find, name, shame, blame and hopefully fix callers.
>
> A fix for cxgb3 is in the works. slub's design is a big problem.
>
> But we'll probably have to revert it for 2.6.31 :(
How is SLUB's design a problem here? Can't we just clear GFP_NOFAIL
from the higher order allocation and thus force GFP_NOFAIL allocations
to use the minimum required order?
Pekka
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists