linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.32.5 regression: page allocation failure. order:1,

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: <1264669315.5996.27.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:01:55 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 2.6.32.5 regression: page allocation failure. order:1,

On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 23:34 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> Mark Lord wrote:
> > Mark Lord wrote:
> >> Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:13:27PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> >>>> I recently upgraded our 24/7 server from 2.6.31.5 to 2.6.32.5.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, suddenly the logs are full of "page allocation failure. order:1",
> >>>> and the odd "page allocation failure. order:4" failures.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wow.  WTF happened in 2.6.32 ???
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There was one bug related to MIGRATE_RESERVE that might be affecting
> >>> you. It reported as impacting swap-orientated workloads but it could
> >>> easily affect drivers that depend on high-order atomic allocations.
> >>> Unfortunately, the fix is not signed-off yet but I expect it to make its
> >>> way towards mainline when it is.
> >>>
> >>> Here is the patch with a slightly-altered changelog. Can you test if it
> >>> makes a difference please?
> >> ..
> >>
> >> We don't like to reboot our 24/7 server very often,
> >> and certainly not for debugging buggy kernels.
> >>
> >> It's rock solid again with 2.6.31.12 on it now.
> >>
> >> The defining characteristic of that machine, is that it has only 512MB
> >> of physical RAM.  So perhaps I'll try booting a different machine here
> >> with mem=512M and see how that behaves.  If the problem shows up on that,
> >> then I'll try the patch.
> > ..
> > 
> > Sod it.  2.6.32 is simply too broken for us here on 32-bit non-SMP.
> > 
> > Attempting to boot a 32-bit kernel with "nosmp mem=512M" on my notebook
> > locks up at boot time with several repeated messages like this:
> > 
> >   request_module: runaway loop modprobe binfmt_464c
> > 
> > Useless kernel on 32-bit.  I hope 2.6.33 ends up less buggy.
> ..
> 
> I rebuilt it (again!), this time as a pure UP (non-SMP) kernel,
> and it still locks at boot, with or without the mem=512M parameter.
> 
> This is one really bad kernel release for 32-bit x86.

FWFW, it doesn't seem to be anything generic.

My P4 box boots and runs fine nosmp+mem=512M.. no allocation errors so
far while beating it up.  It's not even a tiny bit fun to use with KDE
while doing so though. Doing a bunch of git and nfs activity convinces
reclaim that vital bits of my GUI are expendable.

	-Mike

--
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/