xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "0-order allocation failed"

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: "0-order allocation failed"
From: tls@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:26:40 -0400
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20010819210820.042d8790@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from knuffie@xxxxxxxxx on Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 09:15:55PM +0200
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010819195213.03383778@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010819134049.A28720@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4.3.2.7.2.20010819195213.03383778@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010819150050.A29326@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4.3.2.7.2.20010819210820.042d8790@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2i
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 09:15:55PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
> >
> >I noticed a later list message suggesting that a change to XFS in the 2.4.6
> >timeframe should significantly improve stability on highmem machines; I also
> >found a message suggesting that there were deadlocks elsewhere in the Linux
> >kernel on highmem machines until 2.4.7.  So I had high hopes for the 2.4.9
> >patch.
> 
> 2.4.9 is not available as a patch on the FTP site yet and you will need to 
> fetch it from CVS.

Actually, it appears to have been on the FTP site for a couple of days.  Do
you see any reason I shouldn't run it?

> >Unfortunately, though I haven't gotten the machine to hang hard yet, I'm
> >now running 2.4.9 and a simple cp -R of our CVS repository from one directory
> >on an XFS filesystem to another produces the "0 order alloc" messages.
> 
> These are rather irritating but not related to XFS. If you push ext2 or 
> reiserfs hard enough they will  show up as well.

Hm.  I can't seem to make it happen, but I'll take your word for it.

Is it too complex, or would you mind giving me a thumbnail sketch of how
the memory-allocation path differs in highmem systems that would cause
allocation to fail more frequently?  I've got a decent background WRT the
Unix kernel but the guts of the Linux VM system aren't something I've looked
at before in any detail.

> >Is this actually believed to be fixed at the moment, or not?  Looks like
> >not, but I'll leave this running for a few hours and see if I can get an
> >actual hang.
> 
> The message is fairly harmless for now but the box should at least survive 
> this. Stability on highmem is at least better then what it used to be.

My copy-copy-delete test has, indeed, been running since I sent the original
message and so far it hasn't hung, with 2.4.9 and the patch from the FTP
site.  I guess I'll have to get over my nervousness about the messages. :-/

Thanks for the help!

Thor


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