From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:57:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:57:44 -0400 Received: from mailf.telia.com ([194.22.194.25]:5858 "EHLO mailf.telia.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:57:34 -0400 Message-Id: <200108291657.f7TGvlw27738@mailf.telia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Roger Larsson To: Stephan von Krawczynski Subject: Re: Memory Problem in 2.4.10-pre2 / __alloc_pages failed Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:47:54 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] Cc: linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <20010829140706.3fcb735c.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20010829140706.3fcb735c.skraw@ithnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesdayen den 29 August 2001 14:07, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > Aug 29 13:43:34 admin kernel: __alloc_pages: 2-order allocation failed > (gfp=0x20/0). Aug 29 13:43:34 admin kernel: pid=1207; > __alloc_pages(gfp=0x20, order=2, ...) > Aug 29 13:43:34 admin kernel: Call Trace: [_alloc_pages+22/24] > [__get_free_pages+10/24] [] > [] [] [] [] > [ip_local_deliver_finish+0/368] I think this is the okfn parameter to nf_hook_slow below (0/368). And that skb_linearize(skp, GFP_ATOMIC) is much more likely candidate especially since it calls kmalloc... Why does skb_linearize need to be GFP_ATOMIC? Lets see, furter down we have do_softirq... hmm.. not good to sleep in... Next question: do we really need to linearize? Third question: order of the package is 2 => 4096 << 2 = 16k quite big for a packet... (MRU MTU network settings?) > [nf_hook_slow+272/404] > [ip_rcv_finish+0/480] [ip_local_deliver+436/444] > [ip_local_deliver_finish+0/368] [ip_rcv_finish+0/480] > [ip_rcv_finish+413/480] [ip_rcv_finish+0/480] [nf_hook_slow+272/404] > [ip_rcv+870/944] [ip_rcv_finish+0/480] [net_rx_action+362/628] > [do_softirq+111/204] [do_IRQ+219/236] [ret_from_intr+0/7] > [sys_ioctl+443/532] [system_call+51/56] > > Unfortunately I cannot tell what pid 1207 is, for it is gone when I do a ps > afterwards. Change the printout of 'current->pid' to 'current->comm' format '%s' > This test setup shows vm errors on every 2.4 I tested so far, > but on various occasions, all 2.4 below 10-pre1 fail during reading / > writing. All 10-pre-x fail afterwards. If I can provide additional > information please tell me. I am very willing to test anything you like > with chances it doesn't corrupt my filesystems ;-) No guarantees... /RogerL -- Roger Larsson Skellefteċ Sweden