On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 23:38 -0400, micah anderson wrote: > On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:48:24 +0100, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 12:41 -0400, micah anderson wrote: > > > On 2010-04-08, micah anderson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 11:52 -0400, Micah Anderson wrote: > > > > > Package: linux-image-2.6.32-2-amd64 > > > > > Version: 2.6.32-8~bpo50+1 > > > > > Severity: important > > > > > > > > > > I'm running a tor exit node on a kvm instance, it runs for a little > > > > > while (between an hour and 3 days), doing 30-40mbit/sec and then > > > > > suddenly 'swapper: page allocation failure' happens, and the entire > > > > > networking stack of the kvm instance is dead. It stops responding on > > > > > the net completely. No ping in or out, no traffic can be observed > > > > > using tcpdump, the counters on the interface no longer change > > > > > (although the interface stays up). > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > It sounds like there might be a memory leak. Please send the contents > > > > of /proc/meminfo and /proc/slabinfo from a 'normal' state and the broken > > > > state. > > > > > > I noticed this time when it crashed something different that I had not > > > seen in previous 2.6.30/2.6.26 kernels: > > > > > > [ 7962.841287] SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on node -1 (gfp=0x20) > > > [ 7962.841287] cache: kmalloc-1024, object size: 1024, buffer size: 1024, default order: 1, min order: 0 > > > [ 7962.841287] node 0: slabs: 606, objs: 4544, free: 0 > > > > > > and then the normal: > > > [ 7963.102476] swapper: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x4020 > > > [ 7963.105743] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.32-bpo.2-amd64 #1 > > > [ 7963.106418] Call Trace: > > > [ 7963.106418] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810b947d>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x55b/0x5ce > > > etc. > > > > > > As requested here is a normal state /proc/meminfo and /proc/slabinfo. See below for > > > the broken state > > [...] > > > > There's no sign of a memory leak and there's actually much more free > > memory in the broken state, perhaps because any network servers have > > lost all their clients and freed session state. My guess is that the > > driver just doesn't handle allocation failure gracefully. Which network > > driver are you using in the guest? > > I started with virtio, but had a hunch that maybe switching to e100e > might be more stable, but sadly both produce the same results. [...] There's no such thing as e100e - Linux has e100, e1000 and e1000e drivers; QEMU only emulates e1000. Please run lsmod inside the guest to check what's really being used. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part