Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752680AbZGaLst (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:48:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752559AbZGaLst (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:48:49 -0400 Received: from mail-a03.ithnet.com ([217.64.83.98]:41719 "HELO ithnet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752572AbZGaLss (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:48:48 -0400 X-Sender-Authentication: net64 Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:48:43 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: David Rientjes Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Justin Piszcz , Jeff Kirsher , Jesse Brandeburg , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [Bug #13648] nfsd: page allocation failure Message-Id: <20090731134843.6ea9d3dd.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20090727130420.1514cf5c.skraw@ithnet.com> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1861 Lines: 53 On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > > This is no regression between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. > > In fact we could reproduce the problem with kernel versions: > > > > 2.6.27.26 < X <= 2.6.30.3 > > > > (Meaning 2.6.27.26 is the last one _not_ showing the problem). > > > > And 2.6.28.10 is showing the exact same problem as initially reported, > right? Yes, that is correct. > I noticed your /var/log/messages is showing you're using slub as opposed > to slab (which Justin was using, and causing order-0 allocations errors). > SLUB uses order-1 allocations for this cache growth and it's failing > because of memory fragmentation, not because you're truly oom. Originally I used slab, and as someone wanted me to test slub I tried. The results looked pretty much the same to me. > The only thing that is immediately apparent that changed in this path over > these kernel versions (there were significant changes to e1000e) is the > CRC stripping. If it's loaded as a module, perhaps you could try > > modprobe e1000e CrcStripping=0,0 > > (assuming you have two adapters). I will try that. > I've cc'd some relevant e1000e driver people in the hopes they'll be able > to diagnose this problem. Memory fragmentation as the result of page > group changes wouldn't affect order-0 allocations such as this on slab, so > it's doubtful the VM regressed if you can reproduce the problem with > CONFIG_SLAB. I can, as said before, the problem first showed up with slab. -- Regards, Stephan -- 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/