On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x20) > > > cache: kmalloc-16384, object size: 16384, buffer size: 16384, > > default order: 2, min order: 0 > > > node 0: slabs: 28, objs: 292, free: 0 > > > ip: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x8020 > > > Call Trace: > > > [c000000006a0eb40] [c000000000011c30] .show_stack+0x6c/0x16c (unreliable) > > > [c000000006a0ebf0] [c00000000012129c] .__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x6a0/0x75c > > > [c000000006a0ed70] [c0000000001527cc] .alloc_pages_current+0xc4/0x104 > > > [c000000006a0ee10] [c00000000011fca4] .__get_free_pages+0x18/0x90 > > > [c000000006a0ee90] [c0000000004f7058] .ehea_get_stats+0x4c/0x1bc > > > [c000000006a0ef30] [c0000000005a0a04] .dev_get_stats+0x38/0x64 > > > [c000000006a0efc0] [c0000000005b456c] .rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x35c/0x85c > > > [c000000006a0f150] [c0000000005b5920] .rtmsg_ifinfo+0x164/0x204 > > > [c000000006a0f210] [c0000000005a6d6c] .dev_change_flags+0x4c/0x7c > > > [c000000006a0f2a0] [c0000000005b50b4] .do_setlink+0x31c/0x750 > > > [c000000006a0f3b0] [c0000000005b6724] .rtnl_newlink+0x388/0x618 > > > [c000000006a0f5f0] [c0000000005b6350] .rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x268/0x2b4 > > > [c000000006a0f6a0] [c0000000005cfdc0] .netlink_rcv_skb+0x74/0x108 > > > [c000000006a0f730] [c0000000005b60c4] .rtnetlink_rcv+0x38/0x5c > > > [c000000006a0f7c0] [c0000000005cf8c8] .netlink_unicast+0x318/0x3f4 > > > [c000000006a0f890] [c0000000005d05b4] .netlink_sendmsg+0x2d0/0x310 > > > [c000000006a0f970] [c00000000058e1e8] .sock_sendmsg+0xd4/0x110 > > > [c000000006a0fb50] [c00000000058e514] .SyS_sendmsg+0x1f4/0x288 > > > [c000000006a0fd70] [c00000000058c2b8] .SyS_socketcall+0x214/0x280 > > > [c000000006a0fe30] [c0000000000085b4] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40 > > > Mem-Info: > > > Node 0 DMA per-cpu: > > > CPU 0: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > CPU 1: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > CPU 2: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > CPU 3: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 > > > > > > The mainline 2.6.35-rc5 worked fine. > > > > Maybe you were lucky with 2.6.35-rc5 > > > > Anyway ehea should not use GFP_ATOMIC in its ehea_get_stats() method, > > called in process context, but GFP_KERNEL. > > > > Another patch is needed for ehea_refill_rq_def() as well. > > You're right that this is abusing GFP_ATOMIC. > > But is, this is just a normal "GFP_ATOMIC" allocation failure? "SLUB: > Unable to allocate memory on node -1" seems like a somewhat > inappropriate error message for that. >
The slub message is seperate and doesn't generate a call trace, even though it is a (minimum) order-0 GFP_ATOMIC allocation as well. The page allocation failure is seperate instance that is calling the page allocator, not the slab allocator. > It isn't immediately obvious where the -1 is coming from. Does it truly > mean "allocate from any node" here, or is that a buglet in and of > itself? > Yes, slub uses -1 to indicate that the allocation need not come from a specific node. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
