[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080517222027.GB31440@codemonkey.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 18:20:27 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: huge failed atomic allocation in dccp.
This strikes me as somewhat bizarre..
modprobe: page allocation failure. order:10, mode:0x20
Pid: 10505, comm: modprobe Not tainted 2.6.25-14.fc9.x86_64 #1
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8107ee4c>] __alloc_pages+0x351/0x371
[<ffffffff8109fc0d>] ? sysfs_slab_alias+0x41/0x81
[<ffffffff81097d90>] alloc_pages_current+0x100/0x109
[<ffffffff8107e1ac>] __get_free_pages+0xe/0x4d
[<ffffffff881010bd>] :dccp:dccp_init+0xbd/0x3a5
[<ffffffff81057627>] sys_init_module+0x193f/0x1a87
[<ffffffff810a4c90>] ? do_sync_read+0xe7/0x12d
[<ffffffff81205eab>] ? release_sock+0x0/0xaf
[<ffffffff8106d543>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x126/0x15a
[<ffffffff81013073>] ? syscall_trace_enter+0xb5/0xb9
[<ffffffff8100c052>] tracesys+0xd5/0xda
An order 10 GFP_ATOMIC allocation failing shouldn't really be surprising.
The hash sizing in dccp_init seems to cope with this situation
by trying successively smaller values, but this will cause
spew to the logs whilst it's doing that.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists