2.6.7-vanilla-SMP kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages

Jul 20 09:07:34 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 20 09:07:34 ishtar last message repeated 25 times
Jul 20 09:26:38 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 20 09:27:09 ishtar last message repeated 354 times
Jul 20 09:27:52 ishtar last message repeated 274 times
Jul 20 09:45:46 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 20 09:45:46 ishtar last message repeated 2 times
Jul 20 10:00:10 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 21 02:30:00 ishtar su: (to backup) root on none
Jul 21 02:30:01 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 21 02:30:04 ishtar last message repeated 16 times
Jul 21 02:30:30 ishtar su: (to backup) root on none
Jul 21 02:31:55 ishtar su: (to backup) root on none
Jul 21 02:31:55 ishtar last message repeated 3 times
Jul 21 03:15:09 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 21 03:15:09 ishtar last message repeated 4 times
Jul 21 04:07:34 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 21 04:07:34 ishtar last message repeated 9 times
Jul 21 04:26:44 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 21 04:27:45 ishtar last message repeated 1516 times
Jul 21 04:27:54 ishtar last message repeated 36 times
Jul 21 04:45:51 ishtar kernel: pagebuf_get: failed to lookup pages
Jul 21 04:45:51 ishtar last message repeated 7 times

----

Any idea what this message means? I especially notice a high
frequency during
high disk i/o. File systems are all xfs if that is pertinent. Backups run in early AM backing up SCSI disks to a large IDE. However, the messages around 9:27 on the 20th wouldn't have been backup related but possibly processing a backlog of email after some system maintenance -- and that would have all been on SCSI disks.

it means "try the CVS tree" (i think hch fixed this and it's in CVS but not mainline)

--cw

Will this be included/fixed in 2.6.8?

How serious is the problem? The system doesn't seem to panic or indicate backup failures.

Setting up a CVS tree to get a patch for a "stable-series" kernel seems a bit unstable. I'm not sure what I'd pull in besides the fix or even if I'd pull down a coherent/stable CVS image if I downloaded in the middle of when some other patch was being checked in. Maybe I'm sounding like a wimp, but the idea of pulling in freshly checked in CVS code for use on a 'stable' machine is bordering on my discomfort zone. :-)

-l

i assume that's the intention but i don't know when 2.6.8 is and how much time the sgi people have before then. my guess is yes though

not sure, hch can you comment here maybe?

CVS is "stable linux releases + XFS fixes" --- it's really not that bad (whilst i personally don't use it, my tree is derieved from it and i don't have problems)

cd path/to/workarea
cvs -qz9 -d :pserver:[email protected]:/cvs co linux-2.6-xfs cd linux-2.6-xfs
cp path/to/old/.config .config
make oldconfig
make ...

FWIW, the CVS tree isn't freshly checked in, it's a reflection of the internal ptools tree where in theory you shouldn't get adhoc checkins like lots of places (but yeah, it does sometimes break but not usually badly).

Anyhow, if you don't like it you can (1) ingnore the problems (2) use official binary releases from vendors (3) use ext3, etc.

whatever works for you...

--cw

The fix has been included in the 2.6.8-pre/rc kernels for some time now, so yes it'll be in 2.6.8.

This leaked locked pages on metadata readahead failure (which could occur when free memory becomes low), which is serious.

cheers.

Nathan