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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180422134439.GK17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 07:44:39 -0600 From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...org Subject: Re: [dummy_stm_init] swapper/0: page allocation failure: order:9, mode:0x14040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP), nodemask=(null) On Thu 19-04-18 13:21:14, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:51:11AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 19-04-18 10:36:39, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > > > FYI this happens in mainline kernel 4.17.0-rc1. > > > It dates back to at least v4.15. > > > > > > It occurs in 4 out of 4 boots. Here KVM has 1G memory. > > > > > > This high order allocation caused lots of noises in our boot testing. > > > We could disable this device in our tests, but it would be great if > > > there are better ways out. > > > > > > [ 75.039408] Product name: fake-design-for-testing > > > [ 75.040995] fmc fake-design-for-testing-f001: Driver has no ID: matches all > > > [ 75.042509] fmc_trivial: probe of fake-design-for-testing-f001 failed with error -95 > > > [ 75.044323] fmc fake-design-for-testing-f001: Driver has no ID: matches all > > > [ 75.045644] fmc_chardev fake-design-for-testing-f001: Created misc device "fake-design-for-testing-f001" > > > [ 75.061570] swapper/0: page allocation failure: order:9, mode:0x14040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP), nodemask=(null) > > > > Is there any reason why > > > [ 75.063338] stm_register_device+0xf3/0x5c0: > > > stm_register_device at drivers/hwtracing/stm/core.c:695 > > > > cannot use kvzalloc? > > Michal, do you understand how allocating ~512kB leads to order-9 failure? > Shouldn't it be order-8 at most? That's not clear to me. How do you tell it is 512kB? The page allocator consumes order so maybe something miscalculated the order when calling the allocator? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists