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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMGffE=qxXNwTeRvzX3YYEgEgB9FJzDhkUM6R=v4BTsVRasH6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:56:45 +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)

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 8:43 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On 2022-06-21 17:27:22 [+0200], Jinpu Wang wrote:
> > Hi, there
> Hi,
>
> > > > 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.
>
> why 512 * 128KiB? It is:
> |         chunk_pool = mempool_create_page_pool(sess_queue_depth * CHUNK_POOL_SZ,
> |                                               get_order(max_chunk_size));
> with
> | static int __read_mostly max_chunk_size = DEFAULT_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE;
> | static int __read_mostly sess_queue_depth = DEFAULT_SESS_QUEUE_DEPTH;
> | #define CHUNK_POOL_SZ 10
>
> so isn't it (512 * 10) * 128KiB?
eh, you're right, I forgot we have mempool. We discussed internally in
the past to remove that, we should do it.

Sorry
>
> > Thanks!
>
> Sebastian