linux-kernel - Re: [locking/lockdep] 4051a81774: page_allocation_failure:order:#,mode:#(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: <CAMGffEksZGQrdHM9CS0H0Tq4TvfQMAbdcFYZej2KNWY=VxuBQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jun 2022 17:27:22 +0200
From:   Jinpu Wang <jinpu.wang@...os.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        lkp@...ts.01.org, lkp@...el.com,
        "Md. Haris Iqbal" <haris.iqbal@...os.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [locking/lockdep] 4051a81774: page_allocation_failure:order:#,mode:#(GFP_KERNEL),nodemask=(null)

Hi, there

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:42 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> + rtrs, infiniband folks.
>
> On 2022-06-20 10:07:27 [+0800], kernel test robot wrote:
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-11):
> >
> > commit: 4051a81774d6d8e28192742c26999d6f29bc0e68 ("locking/lockdep: Use sched_clock() for random numbers")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking/urgent
> …
> > in testcase: boot
> >
> > on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 16G
> >
> …
> > [   17.451787][    T1] rtrs_server L2256: Loading module rtrs_server, proto 2.0: (max_chunk_size: 131072 (pure IO 126976, headers 4096) , sess_queue_depth: 512, always_invalidate: 1)
> > [   17.470894][    T1] swapper: page allocation failure: order:5, mode:0xcc0(GFP_KERNEL), nodemask=(null)
>
> If I read this right, it allocates "512 * 10" chunks of order 5 / 128KiB
> of memory (contiguous memory). And this appears to fail.
> This is either a lot of memory or something that shouldn't be used on
> i386.
It allocates 512 * 128 KiB of memory, which is probably to big for
this VM setup.
>
> Either way, locking/urgent is innocent.
Agree.

Thanks!