On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:20:59 +0000 "Daniel J Blueman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> I'm still hitting this with e1000e on 2.6.25-rc2, 10 times again.
> are you sure? I don't think that's the case and you're seeing e1000 dumps > here... Indeed so! I thought I moved to e1000e a time ago, but forgot that I had moved back due to lack of support for 82566DC, added since. I'm not seeing any related messages with e1000e after a few days' uptime, so all looks well... Thanks again, Daniel > >> It's clearly non-fatal, but then do we expect it to occur? > >> > >> Daniel > >> > >> --- [dmesg] > >> > >> [ 1250.822786] swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x4020 > >> [ 1250.822786] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc2-119 #2 > >> [ 1250.822786] > >> [ 1250.822786] Call Trace: > >> [ 1250.822786] <IRQ> [<ffffffff8025fe9e>] __alloc_pages+0x34e/0x3a0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8027acc2>] __slab_alloc+0x102/0x3d0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] ? __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8027b8cb>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x7b/0xc0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048b74f>] __alloc_skb+0x6f/0x160 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8048c6df>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x1f/0x40 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8042652d>] e1000_alloc_rx_buffers+0x1ed/0x260 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80426b5a>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x22a/0x330 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80422981>] e1000_clean+0x1e1/0x540 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8024b7a5>] ? tick_program_event+0x45/0x70 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff804930ba>] net_rx_action+0x9a/0x150 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff802336b4>] __do_softirq+0x74/0xf0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020c5fc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020eaad>] do_softirq+0x3d/0x80 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80233635>] irq_exit+0x85/0x90 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020eba5>] do_IRQ+0x85/0x100 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020a5b0>] ? mwait_idle+0x0/0x50 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020b981>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa > >> [ 1250.822786] <EOI> [<ffffffff8020a5f5>] ? mwait_idle+0x45/0x50 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80209a92>] ? enter_idle+0x22/0x30 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff8020a534>] ? cpu_idle+0x74/0xa0 > >> [ 1250.822786] [<ffffffff80527825>] ? rest_init+0x55/0x60 > > > > They're regularly reported with e1000 too - I don't think aything really > > changed. > > > > e1000 has this crazy problem where because of a cascade of follies (mainly > > borked hardware) it has to do a 32kb allocation for a 9kb(?) packet. It > > would be sad if that was carried over into e1000e? > > can't be, I personally removed that code. > > for MTU > 1500 e1000e uses a plain normal sized SKB. for anything bigger > e1000e > uses pages. > > so I don't see how this bug could still be showing up for e1000e at all. The > large > skb receive code is all gone (literally, removed). > > *please* rmmod e1000; modprobe e1000e and show the dumps again so we know > for sure > that we're not looking at e1000 dumps. > > short fix: increase ring size for e1000 with `modprobe e1000 > RxDescriptors=4096` > (or use ethtool) and `echo -n 8192 > /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes` or > something > like that. > > what nic hardware is this on? lspci? > > Auke > -- Daniel J Blueman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
