Oops on 2.6.34.8-68.fc13.x86_64

[Ruben Kerkhof]

I just hit the following on a vm running 2.6.34.8-68.fc13.x86_64 after
doing a lot of network traffic:

kswapd0: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x20
Pid: 33, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 2.6.34.8-68.fc13.x86_64 #1
Call Trace:
 <IRQ>  [<ffffffff810d158c>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x5c1/0x62f
 [<ffffffff810f8607>] alloc_pages_current+0x95/0x9e
 [<ffffffffa001ca06>] try_fill_recv+0x6c/0x1f3 [virtio_net]
 [<ffffffffa001d61f>] virtnet_poll+0x617/0x738 [virtio_net]
 [<ffffffff813a6243>] net_rx_action+0xaf/0x1ca
 [<ffffffff810533a6>] __do_softirq+0xe2/0x1a4
 [<ffffffff8109e1e5>] ? handle_IRQ_event+0x60/0x121
 [<ffffffff8100ab5c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
 [<ffffffff8100c342>] do_softirq+0x46/0x83
 [<ffffffff8105321a>] irq_exit+0x3b/0x7d
 [<ffffffff8145328c>] do_IRQ+0xac/0xc3
 [<ffffffff8144d9d3>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x11
 <EOI>  [<ffffffff810d04d2>] ? __pagevec_free+0x66/0x77
 [<ffffffff810d626b>] shrink_page_list+0x3a0/0x477
 [<ffffffff8110ac42>] ? lookup_page_cgroup+0x32/0x48
 [<ffffffff810d66d4>] shrink_inactive_list+0x392/0x68e
 [<ffffffff810d1f9f>] ? determine_dirtyable_memory+0x1a/0x2c
 [<ffffffff810d2027>] ? get_dirty_limits+0x27/0x252
 [<ffffffff810483a8>] ? load_balance+0xd9/0x67f
 [<ffffffff810d6d2d>] shrink_zone+0x35d/0x411
 [<ffffffff810d7aaf>] balance_pgdat+0x337/0x5b6
 [<ffffffff810d51a9>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x1f7
 [<ffffffff810d7f69>] kswapd+0x23b/0x266
 [<ffffffff8106625f>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x39
 [<ffffffff810d7d2e>] ? kswapd+0x0/0x266
 [<ffffffff81065de5>] kthread+0x7f/0x87
 [<ffffffff8100aa64>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
 [<ffffffff81065d66>] ? kthread+0x0/0x87
 [<ffffffff8100aa60>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
Mem-Info:
Node 0 DMA per-cpu:
CPU    0: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
CPU    1: hi:    0, btch:   1 usd:   0
Node 0 DMA32 per-cpu:
CPU    0: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:   0
CPU    1: hi:  186, btch:  31 usd:  66
active_anon:15196 inactive_anon:31193 isolated_anon:0
 active_file:65429 inactive_file:117341 isolated_file:32
 unevictable:8 dirty:8205 writeback:0 unstable:0
 free:1359 slab_reclaimable:9424 slab_unreclaimable:6876
 mapped:3140 shmem:44 pagetables:1109 bounce:0
Node 0 DMA free:3992kB min:60kB low:72kB high:88kB active_anon:0kB
inactive_anon:0kB active_file:16kB inactive_file:11812kB
unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15360kB
mlocked:0kB dirty:352kB writeback:0kB mapped:0kB shmem:0kB
slab_reclaimable:72kB slab_unreclaimable:0kB kernel_stack:0kB
pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB
pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
lowmem_reserve[]: 0 994 994 994
Node 0 DMA32 free:1444kB min:4000kB low:5000kB high:6000kB
active_anon:60784kB inactive_anon:124772kB active_file:261700kB
inactive_file:457552kB unevictable:32kB isolated(anon):0kB
isolated(file):128kB present:1018068kB mlocked:32kB dirty:32468kB
writeback:0kB mapped:12560kB shmem:176kB slab_reclaimable:37624kB
slab_unreclaimable:27504kB kernel_stack:864kB pagetables:4436kB
unstable:0kB bounce:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:32
all_unreclaimable? no
lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0
Node 0 DMA: 0*4kB 1*8kB 5*16kB 2*32kB 4*64kB 6*128kB 3*256kB 0*512kB
0*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 3992kB
Node 0 DMA32: 1*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 1*32kB 0*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 0*512kB
1*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 1444kB
182826 total pagecache pages
0 pages in swap cache
Swap cache stats: add 0, delete 0, find 0/0
Free swap  = 1044188kB
Total swap = 1044188kB
262140 pages RAM
6290 pages reserved
94483 pages shared
170020 pages non-shared

This looks a lot like
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/579276

and should be fixed by upstream commit 3e9d08e virtio_net: Add
schedule check to napi_enable call which is also in the -longterm and
-stable releases.

Is this something which can be picked up for the F-13 and F-14 kernels?

Kind regards,


Ruben

[Kyle McMartin]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:08:44PM +0100, Ruben Kerkhof wrote:
>  I just hit the following on a vm running 2.6.34.8-68.fc13.x86_64
> after
>  doing a lot of network traffic:
>   
want to test: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2936814
and make sure I didn't screw up the backport?

--Kyle

[Ruben Kerkhof]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 17:29, Kyle McMartin <kyle(a)mcmartin.ca&gt; wrote:
>  On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:08:44PM +0100, Ruben Kerkhof wrote:
> > I just hit the following on a vm running 2.6.34.8-68.fc13.x86_64 after
> > doing a lot of network traffic:
> >
>
>  want to test: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2936814
>  and make sure I didn't screw up the backport? 
Sure, once I've figured out how to get it installed since I'm running
the same version :)

Kind regards,

Ruben

[Ruben Kerkhof]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 21:24, Ruben Kerkhof <ruben(a)rubenkerkhof.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 17:29, Kyle McMartin <kyle(a)mcmartin.ca&gt;
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:08:44PM +0100, Ruben Kerkhof wrote:
> >> I just hit the following on a vm running 2.6.34.8-68.fc13.x86_64 after
> >> doing a lot of network traffic:
> >>
> >
> > want to test: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2936814
> > and make sure I didn't screw up the backport?
>
>  Sure, once I've figured out how to get it installed since I'm running
>  the same version :) 
I've got it running now, and will generate some network traffic for a
few hours to see if the problem has disappeared.

I'll report back tomorrow.

Thanks again!

Ruben

[Kyle McMartin]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:43:32PM +0100, Ruben Kerkhof wrote:
>  >> want to test:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2936814
>  >> and make sure I didn't screw up the backport?
>  >
>  > Sure, once I've figured out how to get it installed since I'm running
>  > the same version :)
>  
>  I've got it running now, and will generate some network traffic for a
>  few hours to see if the problem has disappeared.
>  
>  I'll report back tomorrow.
>  
>  Thanks again!
>   
no problem, i should have cranked baserelease by .1 for the scratch
build. :/

thanks for testing.

--kyle

[Ruben Kerkhof]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 21:57, Kyle McMartin <kyle(a)mcmartin.ca&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:43:32PM +0100, Ruben Kerkhof wrote:
> > >> want to test: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2936814
> > >> and make sure I didn't screw up the backport?
> > >
> > > Sure, once I've figured out how to get it installed since I'm running
> > > the same version :)
> >
> > I've got it running now, and will generate some network traffic for a
> > few hours to see if the problem has disappeared.
> >
> > I'll report back tomorrow.
> >
> > Thanks again!
> >
>
>  no problem, i should have cranked baserelease by .1 for the scratch
>  build. :/
>
>  thanks for testing. 
No problems here after doing about 1.5TB of traffic :)

Kind regards,

Ruben