] [] SyS_init_module+0xfb/0x140
[ 101.918287] [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 101.924981] kvm_intel: Could not allocate 42 bytes percpu data
Wondering if anyone else has seen this with the recent [3.10] based
kernels esp. on larger boxes?
There was a similar issue that was reported earlier
=42 align=16, alloc from
> reserved
> chunk failed
> [ 82.272633] kvm_intel: Could not allocate 42 bytes percpu data
On 3.10? Geez. I thought we had fixed this. I'll grab a big machine and see
if I can debug.
Rusty -- any ideas off the top of your head?'
&
S is running on a large socket count box with HT-on).
> >
> > [ 82.270682] PERCPU: allocation failed, size=42 align=16, alloc from
> > reserved
> > chunk failed
> > [ 82.272633] kvm_intel: Could not allocate 42 bytes percpu data
>
> On 3.10? Geez. I thought
t; reserved chunk failed
> [ 82.272633] kvm_intel: Could not allocate 42 bytes percpu data
Woah, weird
Oh. Shit. Um, this is embarrassing.
Thanks,
Rusty.
===
module: do percpu allocation after uniqueness check. No, really!
v3.8-rc1-5-g1fb9341 was supposed to stop parallel kvm loads
from
reserved chunk failed
[ 82.272633] kvm_intel: Could not allocate 42 bytes percpu data
Woah, weird
Oh. Shit. Um, this is embarrassing.
Thanks,
Rusty.
Thanks for your response!
===
module: do percpu allocation after uniqueness check. No, really!
v3.8-rc1-5-g1fb9341 was supposed
nt box
>>> with HT-on).
>>>
>>> [ 82.270682] PERCPU: allocation failed, size=42 align=16, alloc from
>>> reserved chunk failed
>>> [ 82.272633] kvm_intel: Could not allocate 42 bytes percpu data
>> Woah, weird
>>
>> Oh. Shit. Um,
).
[ 82.270682] PERCPU: allocation failed, size=42 align=16, alloc from
reserved chunk failed
[ 82.272633] kvm_intel: Could not allocate 42 bytes percpu data
Woah, weird
Oh. Shit. Um, this is embarrassing.
Thanks,
Rusty.
Thanks for your response!
===
module: do percpu allocation after
Chegu Vinod writes:
> On 7/1/2013 10:49 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Chegu Vinod writes:
>>> On 6/30/2013 11:22 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
module: do percpu allocation after uniqueness check. No, really!
v3.8-rc1-5-g1fb9341 was supposed to stop parallel kvm loads exhausting
perc