xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed

To: marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:07:35 -0500
Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Galen Arnold <arnoldg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Message from marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of "Wed, 30 May 2001 11:01:23 PDT." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105301059490.712-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
I changed the subject line, it was not relevant.

Not clear which kernel version you are running, your previous message said 
2.4.4-xfs. 2.4.5-xfs is out there now.

Steve

> May 29 20:01:09 gauss kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.  
> .....after a reboot
> May 30 03:27:39 gauss kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed. 
> another crash.
> 
> 
> *****************************
> Walter Marchuk
> Senior Computer Specialist
> University of Washington
> Electrical Engineering
> Room: 307g
> 206-221-5421
> marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *****************************
> 
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am running iozone on a 2Gbyte box on 2.4.5-xfs right now it is still in
> > the first pass - I only have a striped md filesystem, not hardware raid.
> > I have not been running long enough to say if the problem is fixed or not.
> > 
> > There continue to be general highmem problems in 2.4 linux right now, there
> > are known deadlocks in the generic code - nothing to do with XFS itself,
> > but XFS may be better at exposing them. Things do appear to be improving,
> > the 2.4.2 kernel did not last 10 seconds on this test for Galen, the 2.4.4
> > kernel lasted several hours. There are more changes in 2.4.5, but Linus rus
> hed
> > them in right before he put out the 2.4.5 release and he left for Japan,
> > there was continuing discussion that this would not fix the deadlocks.
> > 
> > Since then there has been a patch to change how I/O is done for highmem
> > boxes, which a) improves performance and b) should if I understand it
> > get rid of deadlocks.
> > 
> > I would recommend trying the 2.4.5 kernel, and should that still have
> > problems I can try the patch from Jens Axboe for changing the way the
> > I/O is done and pass it on to you.
> > 
> > Thanks for continuing to pound on xfs though.
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > > linux-2.4.4-xfs
> > > 
> > > *****************************
> > > Walter Marchuk
> > > Senior Computer Specialist
> > > University of Washington
> > > Electrical Engineering
> > > Room: 307g
> > > 206-221-5421
> > > marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > *****************************
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Galen Arnold wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Walter,
> > > > 
> > > > Welcome to the club!  I can reproduce that behavior with 2.4.4-xfs and
> > > > this iozone test (my host has 2G mem, so I test with big files):
> > > > 
> > > >         iozone -s 4000m -r 64k
> > > > 
> > > > My box also hangs (doesn't crash or panic).  Was that 2.4.5-xfs you
> > > > tested, if so, you saved me the trouble and I'll delay my next cvs
> > > > checkout/rebuild?
> > > > 
> > > > -Galen
> > > > 
> > > > +
> > > > Galen Arnold, system engineer--systems group       arnoldg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> u
> > > > National Center for Supercomputing Applications           (217) 244-347
> 3
> > > > 152 Computer Applications Bldg., 605 E. Spfld. Ave., Champaign, IL 6182
> 0
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 30 May 2001 marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > My fileserver has the latest XFS CVS kernel.  Yesterday the machine
> > > > > crashed/froze  It stopped at 8PM right after this allocation failed
> > > > > error.  Notice the time when the machine came back, 1AM (it was physi
> call
> > > y
> > > > > rebooted).  
> > > > > 
> > > > > I did a search for this error and saw a correlation with xfs and this
> > > > > error.  Do any of you know if the error and the crash was due to xfs 
> bug?
> > > > > 
> > > > > May 29 20:01:09 gauss kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation faile
> d.  
> > >     
> > > > > May 30 01:34:19 gauss syslogd 1.3-3: restart.    
> > > > > *****************************
> > > > > Walter Marchuk
> > > > > Senior Computer Specialist
> > > > > University of Washington
> > > > > Electrical Engineering
> > > > > Room: 307g
> > > > > 206-221-5421
> > > > > marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > *****************************
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > That means it's been tagged?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by tagged, I checked in a fix for the p
> robl
> > > em
> > > > > > with the implementation I checked in on Friday, and in cleaning my 
> mail
> > > > > > box I saw that I had said I would do a followup under the same head
> ing.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > Austin Gonyou
> > > > > > > Systems Architect, CCNA
> > > > > > > Coremetrics, Inc.
> > > > > > > Phone: 512-796-9023
> > > > > > > email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sod's law says you find the hole right after you ship the cod
> e. T
> > > here is 
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > bug in this code, I would not do a cvs update until I get a f
> ix i
> > > n, I kno
> > > > > > > w
> > > > > > > > > roughly how to fix it, but it will take me a while to code an
> d te
> > > st it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would hold off on the cvs tree for a while until you see an
> othe
> > > r messag
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > from me on this thread - probably not today.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This was fixed over the weekend by the way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>