On Thu 30-11-17 21:38:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
Hello,
It looks like a regression in 4.15.0-rc1 -- the test case simply run a
set of parallel dd's and there seems no reason to run into memory problem.
It occurs in 1 out of 4 tests.
This is an atomic allocations. So the failure really depends on the
state of the free memory and that can vary between runs depending on
timing I guess. So I am not really sure this is a regression. But maybe
there is something reclaim related going on here.
[...]
[ 71.088242] dd: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0x1080020(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null)
[ 71.098654] dd cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0-1
[ 71.104460] CPU: 0 PID: 6016 Comm: dd Tainted: G O 4.15.0-rc1 #1
[ 71.113553] Call Trace:
[ 71.117886] <IRQ>
[ 71.121749] dump_stack+0x5c/0x7b:
dump_stack at lib/dump_stack.c:55
[ 71.126785] warn_alloc+0xbe/0x150:
preempt_count at arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:23
(inlined by) should_suppress_show_mem at mm/page_alloc.c:3244
(inlined by) warn_alloc_show_mem at mm/page_alloc.c:3254
(inlined by) warn_alloc at mm/page_alloc.c:3293
[ 71.131939] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0xda7/0xdf0:
__alloc_pages_slowpath at mm/page_alloc.c:4151
[ 71.138110] ? xhci_urb_enqueue+0x23d/0x580:
xhci_urb_enqueue at drivers/usb/host/xhci.c:1389
[ 71.143941] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x269/0x280:
__alloc_pages_nodemask at mm/page_alloc.c:4245
[ 71.150167] page_frag_alloc+0x11c/0x150:
__page_frag_cache_refill at mm/page_alloc.c:4335
(inlined by) page_frag_alloc at mm/page_alloc.c:4364
[ 71.155668] __netdev_alloc_skb+0xa0/0x110:
__netdev_alloc_skb at net/core/skbuff.c:415
[ 71.161386] rx_submit+0x3b/0x2e0:
rx_submit at drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c:488
[ 71.166232] rx_complete+0x196/0x2d0:
rx_complete at drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c:659
[ 71.171354] __usb_hcd_giveback_urb+0x86/0x100:
arch_local_irq_restore at arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:777
(inlined by) __usb_hcd_giveback_urb at drivers/usb/core/hcd.c:1769
[ 71.177281] xhci_giveback_urb_in_irq+0x86/0x100
[ 71.184107] xhci_td_cleanup+0xe7/0x170:
xhci_td_cleanup at drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c:1924
[ 71.189457] handle_tx_event+0x297/0x1190:
process_bulk_intr_td at drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c:2267
(inlined by) handle_tx_event at drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c:2598
[ 71.194905] ? reweight_entity+0x145/0x180:
enqueue_runnable_load_avg at kernel/sched/fair.c:2742
(inlined by) reweight_entity at kernel/sched/fair.c:2810
[ 71.200466] xhci_irq+0x300/0xb80:
xhci_handle_event at drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c:2676
(inlined by) xhci_irq at drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c:2777
[ 71.205195] ? scheduler_tick+0xb2/0xe0:
rq_last_tick_reset at kernel/sched/sched.h:1643
(inlined by) scheduler_tick at kernel/sched/core.c:3036
[ 71.210407] ? run_timer_softirq+0x73/0x460:
__collect_expired_timers at kernel/time/timer.c:1375
(inlined by) collect_expired_timers at kernel/time/timer.c:1609
(inlined by) __run_timers at kernel/time/timer.c:1656
(inlined by) run_timer_softirq at kernel/time/timer.c:1688
[ 71.215905] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x3a/0x1a0:
__handle_irq_event_percpu at kernel/irq/handle.c:147
[ 71.221975] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50:
handle_irq_event_percpu at kernel/irq/handle.c:189
[ 71.227641] handle_irq_event+0x3d/0x60:
handle_irq_event at kernel/irq/handle.c:206
[ 71.232682] handle_edge_irq+0x71/0x190:
handle_edge_irq at kernel/irq/chip.c:796
[ 71.237715] handle_irq+0xa5/0x100:
handle_irq at arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c:78
[ 71.242326] do_IRQ+0x41/0xc0:
do_IRQ at arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:241
[ 71.246472] common_interrupt+0x96/0x96:
ret_from_intr at arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:611
[ 71.251509] </IRQ>
Ugh, this looks unreadable... Inlining information can be helpful
sometime, alright but I find the below much more readable.
[ 78.848629] dd: page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0x1080020(GFP_ATOMIC), nodemask=(null)
[ 78.857841] dd cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0-1
[ 78.862502] CPU: 0 PID: 6131 Comm: dd Tainted: G O 4.15.0-rc1 #1
[ 78.870437] Call Trace:
[ 78.873610] <IRQ>
[ 78.876342] dump_stack+0x5c/0x7b
[ 78.880414] warn_alloc+0xbe/0x150
[ 78.884550] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0xda7/0xdf0
[ 78.889822] ? xhci_urb_enqueue+0x23d/0x580
[ 78.894713] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x269/0x280
[ 78.899891] page_frag_alloc+0x11c/0x150
[ 78.904471] __netdev_alloc_skb+0xa0/0x110
[ 78.909277] rx_submit+0x3b/0x2e0
[ 78.913256] rx_complete+0x196/0x2d0
[ 78.917560] __usb_hcd_giveback_urb+0x86/0x100
[ 78.922681] xhci_giveback_urb_in_irq+0x86/0x100
[ 78.928769] ? ip_rcv+0x261/0x390
[ 78.932739] xhci_td_cleanup+0xe7/0x170
[ 78.937308] handle_tx_event+0x297/0x1190
[ 78.941990] xhci_irq+0x300/0xb80
[ 78.945968] ? pciehp_isr+0x46/0x320
[ 78.950870] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x3a/0x1a0
[ 78.956311] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50
[ 78.961466] handle_irq_event+0x3d/0x60
[ 78.965962] handle_edge_irq+0x71/0x190
[ 78.970480] handle_irq+0xa5/0x100
[ 78.974565] do_IRQ+0x41/0xc0
[ 78.978206] ? pagevec_move_tail_fn+0x350/0x350
[ 78.983412] common_interrupt+0x96/0x96
Unfortunatelly we are missing the most imporatant information, the
meminfo. We cannot tell much without it. Maybe collecting /proc/vmstat
during the test will tell us more.
Attachment:
proc-vmstat.json.gz
Description: application/gzip