[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180425145151.mbwpkpes6u4xy22w@um.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 17:51:51 +0300
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.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 Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 02:27:35PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 07:44:39AM -0600, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Alexander, was it 513kB, right?
Yes, 526024 bytes.
Regards,
--
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists