linux-kernel - Re: dd: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0x1080020(GFP

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: <20171130140804.74lgpkvmvnzx4dlm@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:08:04 +0800
From:   Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...org,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: dd: page allocation failure: order:0,
 mode:0x1080020(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null)

>>> [   78.848629] dd: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0x1080020(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null)
>>> [   78.857841] dd cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0-1
>>> [   78.862502] CPU: 0 PID: 6131 Comm: dd Tainted: G           O     4.15.0-rc1 #1
>>> [   78.870437] Call Trace:
>>> [   78.873610]  <IRQ>
>>> [   78.876342]  dump_stack+0x5c/0x7b
>>> [   78.880414]  warn_alloc+0xbe/0x150
>>> [   78.884550]  __alloc_pages_slowpath+0xda7/0xdf0
>>> [   78.889822]  ? xhci_urb_enqueue+0x23d/0x580
>>> [   78.894713]  __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x269/0x280
>>> [   78.899891]  page_frag_alloc+0x11c/0x150
>>> [   78.904471]  __netdev_alloc_skb+0xa0/0x110
>>> [   78.909277]  rx_submit+0x3b/0x2e0
>>> [   78.913256]  rx_complete+0x196/0x2d0
>>> [   78.917560]  __usb_hcd_giveback_urb+0x86/0x100
>>> [   78.922681]  xhci_giveback_urb_in_irq+0x86/0x100
>>> [   78.928769]  ? ip_rcv+0x261/0x390
>>> [   78.932739]  xhci_td_cleanup+0xe7/0x170
>>> [   78.937308]  handle_tx_event+0x297/0x1190
>>> [   78.941990]  xhci_irq+0x300/0xb80
>>> [   78.945968]  ? pciehp_isr+0x46/0x320
>>> [   78.950870]  __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x3a/0x1a0
>>> [   78.956311]  handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50
>>> [   78.961466]  handle_irq_event+0x3d/0x60
>>> [   78.965962]  handle_edge_irq+0x71/0x190
>>> [   78.970480]  handle_irq+0xa5/0x100
>>> [   78.974565]  do_IRQ+0x41/0xc0
>>> [   78.978206]  ? pagevec_move_tail_fn+0x350/0x350
>>> [   78.983412]  common_interrupt+0x96/0x96
>>
>>Unfortunatelly we are missing the most imporatant information, the
>>meminfo. We cannot tell much without it. Maybe collecting /proc/vmstat
>>during the test will tell us more.
>
>Attached the JSON format per-second vmstat records.
>It feels more readable than the raw dumps.

And here is the meminfo lines.

Thanks,
Fengguang


Download attachment "meminfo.json.gz" of type "application/gzip" (4256 bytes)