Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758777AbYBSRru@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758777AbYBSRru (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:47:50 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757568AbYBSRrj
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:47:39 -0500
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:25243 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754135AbYBSRri (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:47:38 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,377,1199692800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="380965232"
Message-ID: <47BB13DD.1040804@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:37:33 -0800
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071125)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
CC: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>,
       Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.25-rc2, 2.6.24-rc8] page allocation failure...
References: <6278d2220802141240g6ee2421ew94e57669ef930be6@mail.gmail.com>	<6278d2220802170520k2ddf9072x386e4a9e3062f4da@mail.gmail.com> <20080218045849.59311851.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080218045849.59311851.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2008 17:38:24.0150 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A20CB60:01C8731E]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3222
Lines: 71

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:20:59 +0000 "Daniel J Blueman" <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> 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...

>> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/