On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 10:28:18PM +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 06:33:48PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > So you can be hitting the e1000/TSO issue - care to retest with 
> > 2.6.10-rc1-mm3/4 please?
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for testing!
> 
> This is from 2.6.10-rc1-mm3: (i added show_free..)
> 
>  swapper: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x20
>   [<c0137f28>] __alloc_pages+0x242/0x40e
>   [<c0138119>] __get_free_pages+0x25/0x3f
>   [<c032ed55>] tcp_v4_rcv+0x69a/0x9b5
>   [<c013b189>] kmem_getpages+0x21/0xc9
>   [<c013be3a>] cache_grow+0xab/0x14d
>   [<c013c05e>] cache_alloc_refill+0x182/0x244
>   [<c013c3ec>] __kmalloc+0x85/0x8c
>   [<c02fac89>] alloc_skb+0x47/0xe0
>   [<c02997ca>] e1000_alloc_rx_buffers+0x44/0xe3
>   [<c029944b>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x17c/0x4b7
>   [<c0298fd0>] e1000_clean+0x51/0xe7
>   [<c03010dc>] net_rx_action+0x7f/0x11f
>   [<c011daa3>] __do_softirq+0xb7/0xc6
>   [<c011dadf>] do_softirq+0x2d/0x2f
>   [<c010614e>] do_IRQ+0x1e/0x24
>   [<c0104756>] common_interrupt+0x1a/0x20
>   [<c0101eae>] default_idle+0x0/0x2c
>   [<c0101ed7>] default_idle+0x29/0x2c
>   [<c0101f40>] cpu_idle+0x33/0x3c
>   [<c0448a1f>] start_kernel+0x14c/0x165
>   [<c04484bd>] unknown_bootoption+0x0/0x1ab
>  DMA per-cpu:
>  cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1
>  cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1
>  cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1
>  cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1
>  Normal per-cpu:
>  cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16
>  cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16
>  cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16
>  cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16
>  HighMem per-cpu:
>  cpu 0 hot: low 14, high 42, batch 7
>  cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 14, batch 7
>  cpu 1 hot: low 14, high 42, batch 7
>  cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 14, batch 7
>  Free pages:         532kB (252kB HighMem)
>  Active:39820 inactive:208936 dirty:104508 writeback:672 unstable:0 free:133 slab:7779 mapped:15810 pagetables:410
>  DMA free:8kB min:12kB low:24kB high:36kB active:384kB inactive:11400kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:192 all_unreclaimable? no
>  protections[]: 0 0 0
>  DMA: 0*4kB 1*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 8kB
>  Normal: 0*4kB 0*8kB 1*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 1*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 272kB
>  HighMem: 15*4kB 8*8kB 2*16kB 1*32kB 1*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 252kB
>  Swap cache: add 1, delete 0, find 0/0, race 0+0
>  printk: 696 messages suppressed.
>  swapper: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x20

OK, do you have Nick watermark fixes in? 

They increase the GFP_ATOMIC buffer (memory reserved for GFP_ATOMIC allocations)
significantly, which is exactly the case here.

Its in Andrew's -mm tree already (the last -mm-bk contains it).

Its attached just in case - hope it ends this story.