[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
Subject[PATCH 3.18 01/16] mm: ratelimit PFNs busy info message
3.18-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.


From: Jonathan Toppins <>

commit 75dddef32514f7aa58930bde6a1263253bc3d4ba upstream.

The RDMA subsystem can generate several thousand of these messages per
second eventually leading to a kernel crash. Ratelimit these messages
to prevent this crash.

Doug said:
"I've been carrying a version of this for several kernel versions. I
don't remember when they started, but we have one (and only one) class
of machines: Dell PE R730xd, that generate these errors. When it
happens, without a rate limit, we get rcu timeouts and kernel oopses.
With the rate limit, we just get a lot of annoying kernel messages but
the machine continues on, recovers, and eventually the memory
operations all succeed"

"> Well... why are all these EBUSY's occurring? It sounds inefficient
> (at least) but if it is expected, normal and unavoidable then
> perhaps we should just remove that message altogether?

I don't have an answer to that question. To be honest, I haven't
looked real hard. We never had this at all, then it started out of the
blue, but only on our Dell 730xd machines (and it hits all of them),
but no other classes or brands of machines. And we have our 730xd
machines loaded up with different brands and models of cards (for
instance one dedicated to mlx4 hardware, one for qib, one for mlx5, an
ocrdma/cxgb4 combo, etc), so the fact that it hit all of the machines
meant it wasn't tied to any particular brand/model of RDMA hardware.
To me, it always smelled of a hardware oddity specific to maybe the
CPUs or mainboard chipsets in these machines, so given that I'm not an
mm expert anyway, I never chased it down.

A few other relevant details: it showed up somewhere around 4.8/4.9 or
thereabouts. It never happened before, but the prinkt has been there
since the 3.18 days, so possibly the test to trigger this message was
changed, or something else in the allocator changed such that the
situation started happening on these machines?

And, like I said, it is specific to our 730xd machines (but they are
all identical, so that could mean it's something like their specific
ram configuration is causing the allocator to hit this on these
machine but not on other machines in the cluster, I don't want to say
it's necessarily the model of chipset or CPU, there are other bits of
identicalness between these machines)"

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <>
Reviewed-by: Doug Ledford <>
Tested-by: Doug Ledford <>
Cc: Michal Hocko <>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <>
Cc: Mel Gorman <>
Cc: Hillf Danton <>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>

mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -6424,7 +6424,7 @@ int alloc_contig_range(unsigned long sta

/* Make sure the range is really isolated. */
if (test_pages_isolated(outer_start, end, false)) {
- pr_info("%s: [%lx, %lx) PFNs busy\n",
+ pr_info_ratelimited("%s: [%lx, %lx) PFNs busy\n",
__func__, outer_start, end);
ret = -EBUSY;
goto done;

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-15 04:00    [W:0.094 / U:6.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site