xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2980 (was Re: [<c019c63f>] xfs_bmap_search_m

from [Christoph Lameter] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Marco Berizzi <pupilla@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2980 (was Re: [<c019c63f>] xfs_bmap_search_multi_extents+0x6f/0xe0)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 03:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, mel@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <BAY103-DAV12D93B7C4F6214C867EE70B2CB0@xxxxxxx>
References: <BAY103-DAV11CCE8C757E221217A0176B2EA0@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708030937280.17307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <BAY103-DAV602D6B6D39BC875BBCB69B2CA0@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709040952570.5768@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <BAY103-DAV12D93B7C4F6214C867EE70B2CB0@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx 
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Marco Berizzi wrote:

> > tcp_collapse? This is due to a network configuration that required an
> > order 2 kmalloc block. Jumbo frames?
> 
> I don't use jumbo frames. Hardware is
> very old (celeron with 3com 3c905).

Something must be doing allocations that requires between 8k and 16k that
SLUB cannot satisfy from order 0 or order 1 allocations.
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  some XFS fixes for 2.6.23, Timothy Shimmin
Next by Date:  Re: kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2980 (was Re: [<c019c63f>] xfs_bmap_search_multi_extents+0x6f/0xe0), Marco Berizzi
Previous by Thread:  Re: kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2980 (was Re: [<c019c63f>] xfs_bmap_search_multi_extents+0x6f/0xe0), Marco Berizzi
Next by Thread:  Re: kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:2980 (was Re: [<c019c63f>] xfs_bmap_search_multi_extents+0x6f/0xe0), Marco Berizzi
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]