Re: Page Allocation Failures Return With 2.6.9+TSO patch.

[Justin Piszcz]

It does not seem like they do, but they cannot be good...

I have applied the following patches

1] TSO patch
2] rollup.patch

Rebooting now and will alert the list if/when I receive more page 
allocation failures.

FYI - I started getting these with 2.6.9.

(However, it was always possible on the Dell Optiplex GX1 to create page 
allocation failure with: ifconfig eth0 mtu 9000), however, on a higher-end 
machine (2.6GHZ, 2GB ram, etc) ifconfig eth0 mtu 9000 worked fine.

Is it something with the architecture of the box bus/box?

Why does it tend to affect one machine and not the other?


On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Nick Piggin wrote:

> Justin Piszcz wrote:
> > Applying this patch now and I will let everyone know what happens, thanks.
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > Justin Piszcz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kernel 2.6.9 w/TSO patch.
> > > >
> > > > (most likely do to the e1000/nic/issue)
> > > >
> > > > $ dmesg
> > > > gaim: page allocation failure. order:4, mode:0x21
> > > >  [<c01391a7>] __alloc_pages+0x247/0x3b0
> > > >  [<c0139328>] __get_free_pages+0x18/0x40
> > > >  [<c035c33a>] sound_alloc_dmap+0xaa/0x1b0
> > > >  [<c03648c0>] ad_mute+0x20/0x40
> > > >  [<c035c70f>] open_dmap+0x1f/0x100
> > > >  [<c035cb58>] DMAbuf_open+0x178/0x1d0
> > > >  [<c035a4fa>] audio_open+0xba/0x280
> > > >  [<c015d863>] cdev_get+0x53/0xc0
> > > >  [<c035968c>] sound_open+0xac/0x110
> > > >  [<c035898e>] soundcore_open+0x1ce/0x300
> > > >  [<c03587c0>] soundcore_open+0x0/0x300
> > > >  [<c015d524>] chrdev_open+0x104/0x250
> > > >  [<c015d420>] chrdev_open+0x0/0x250
> > > >  [<c0152d82>] dentry_open+0x1d2/0x270
> > > >  [<c0152b9c>] filp_open+0x5c/0x70
> > > >  [<c01049c8>] common_interrupt+0x18/0x20
> > > >  [<c0152e75>] get_unused_fd+0x55/0xf0
> > > >  [<c0152fd9>] sys_open+0x49/0x90
> > > >  [<c010405b>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> > >
> > >
> > > Ouch, 64K atomic DMA allocation.
> > >
> > > The DMA zone barely even keeps that much total memory free.
> > >
> > > The caller probably wants fixing, but you could try this patch...
>
> Oh... these allocation failure don't actually hurt anything, do they?
> sound_alloc_dmap would have just reverted to using a 32K buffer instead
> of a 64K one.
>
> Probably the easiest thing to do is stick a __GFP_NOWARN on that
> allocation.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/