[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090731134843.6ea9d3dd.skraw@ithnet.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:48:43 +0200
From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug #13648] nfsd: page allocation failure
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
>
> > This is no regression between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
> > In fact we could reproduce the problem with kernel versions:
> >
> > 2.6.27.26 < X <= 2.6.30.3
> >
> > (Meaning 2.6.27.26 is the last one _not_ showing the problem).
> >
>
> And 2.6.28.10 is showing the exact same problem as initially reported,
> right?
Yes, that is correct.
> I noticed your /var/log/messages is showing you're using slub as opposed
> to slab (which Justin was using, and causing order-0 allocations errors).
> SLUB uses order-1 allocations for this cache growth and it's failing
> because of memory fragmentation, not because you're truly oom.
Originally I used slab, and as someone wanted me to test slub I tried. The
results looked pretty much the same to me.
> The only thing that is immediately apparent that changed in this path over
> these kernel versions (there were significant changes to e1000e) is the
> CRC stripping. If it's loaded as a module, perhaps you could try
>
> modprobe e1000e CrcStripping=0,0
>
> (assuming you have two adapters).
I will try that.
> I've cc'd some relevant e1000e driver people in the hopes they'll be able
> to diagnose this problem. Memory fragmentation as the result of page
> group changes wouldn't affect order-0 allocations such as this on slab, so
> it's doubtful the VM regressed if you can reproduce the problem with
> CONFIG_SLAB.
I can, as said before, the problem first showed up with slab.
--
Regards,
Stephan
--
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