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: <20100129154653.GJ7139@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:46:53 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	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 Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:56:20AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:17:17AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> ..
>>> Rather than wasting time trying to bisect a full major kernel revision,
>>> I think instead I'll just focus on mm/page_alloc.c.
> ..
>> Well, it might not eve be necessary. In the patch I sent you, it pointed
>> the finger at commit 5f8dcc21211a3d4e3a7a5ca366b469fb88117f61 being the
>> problem in that case. I believe your problem is a variation of the
>> slowdown-in-swapping problem except in your case it manifests as
>> GFP_ATOMIC allocations failing.
>>
>> If the fix does not help you, then I'll take a fresh look at the other
>> commits with your particular problem in mind.
> ..
>
> Last night, I installed 2.6.32.7, plus the patch you sent.
> So far, no allocation faults.
>

Nice one.

> I'll leave it running for another day or so, and then perhaps revert
> the one patch to see which of the two things (new kernel, or patch)
> is responsible for the difference.
>

Thanks, I'd appreciate it. While I'm reasonably confident the problem is
with MIGRATE_RESERVE not being free as intended and that the patch fixes
it, I'd like more proof.

> The changelog for 2.6.32.7 included something to fix default rsize/wsize
> values on NFS.  Dunno if this might have had an effect or not,
> but when it was failing.. NFS (order 1) was the most frequent case.
>

I consider it unlikely that a change in NFS is responsible. The network
MTU would remain the same and it's a bigger factor in the size of
allocations made. I think it's just a co-incidence that NFS reported the
most failures simply because it was responsible for the bulk of network
traffic.

Hugh, can I get a signed-off-by on that patch please? I can improve the
changelog if you like and send it to Andrew for merging if you like.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/