Re: Kernel 2.6.9 Multiple Page Allocation Failures

From: Marcelo Tosatti
Date: Tue Nov 09 2004 - 15:07:17 EST

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 07:18:57PM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 10:17:22AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > What is min_free_kbytes default on your machine?
> I think it was 768, definitely around 700-800.
> 2.6.9 said:
> Dentry cache hash table entries: 131072 (order: 7, 524288 bytes)
> Inode-cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
> Memory: 4058200k/4095936k available (2005k kernel code, 36816k reserved, 995k
> data, 196k init, 3178432k highmem)
> > > I tried the following kernels: 2.6.9-mm1, 2.6.10-rc1-bk12, 2.6.9-rc3-bk6,
> > > 2.6.9-rc3-bk5 all of which froze at some point presenting me only with the
> > > above page allocation failure. (no more sysrq)
> > This should be harmless as Andrew said - it would be helpful if you could
> > plug a serial cable to the box - this last oops on the picture doesnt say
> > much.
> Well right now the machine is running 2.4.28-rc1 with the 3w-9nnn patch by
> Adam Radford from this list and i would like to see it run stable for about a
> day before i give 2.6 another try. I think i'll have a terminal server hooked
> up by then.
> > How intense is the network traffic you're generating?
> I was around 60-80 mbit/s each direction at i think 16k interrupts/s.
> With 2.4.28-rc1 this is currently at 180mbit/s 27kpps up, 116mbit/s 24kpps down
> still swapping a bit but no kernel messages on this, just around 1.7 rx
> errors/s.
> > 2.6.7 was stable under the same load?
> No, sorry to give you this impression, 2.6.7 is just what some of my collegues
> and i consider the more stable 2.6 kernel under heavy i/o load.
> > Something is definately screwed, and there are quite an amount of
> > similar reports.
> Can i tell people its ok to see nf_hook_slow in the stack trace as it's
> vm-related? A collegue was quite bluffed when i showed him. ;)
> > XFS also seems to be very memory hungry...
> I have 8 XFS-Filesystems in use here with several thousand files from some k to
> your 'usual' 4GB DVD-image. XFS built as a module at first and then inline but
> that did not change anything off course. 2x200 + 6x250GB that is.

Stefan, Lukas,

Can you please run your workload which cause 0-order page allocation
failures with the following patch, pretty please?

We will have more information on the free areas state when the allocation

Andrew, please apply it to the next -mm, will you?

--- a/mm/page_alloc.c 2004-11-04 22:52:03.000000000 -0200
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c 2004-11-09 16:57:04.823514992 -0200
@@ -902,6 +902,7 @@
" order:%d, mode:0x%x\n",
p->comm, order, gfp_mask);
+ show_free_areas();
return NULL;

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at