[Kittyhawk] KH is not fault-tolerant/fault oblivious

Jonathan Appavoo jappavoo at bu.edu
Mon Sep 12 10:16:18 EDT 2011

We looked at it briefly on Friday and are going to start debugging it now.


On Sep 12, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:

> Actually -- looking at the code what Jan says is consistent - assuming
> its returning from the alloc_skb it should be printing a message about
> not being able to alloc (within the tree driver) and dropping the
> packet which should dequeue it from fifo.  But I'm never seeing the
> message because TRACE() is defined NULL.  I'll fix that for my future
> runs.
> It could be just other parts of the system are more unhappy than us
> without GFP_ATOMIC allocation, but we are only seeing stack dumps from
> the tree receive interrupt....
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Jan Stoess <jan.stoess at kit.edu> wrote:
>> On 9/9/2011 11:15 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>> ow.
>> Wouldn't it make sense to have a less fatal reaction to out of memory
>> conditions, like "drop packet" ...
>> It seems to me that this is just a stack dump, right? Doesn't mean that this
>> is killing Linux already. Might be that it's just unresponsive as hell
>> dumping out all those skb allocation failure messages, but eventually bails
>> out somewhere else.
>> --
>> Dr. Jan Stoess, KIT System Architecture Group
>> Phone: +49 (721) 6084 4056
> _______________________________________________
> Kittyhawk mailing list
> Kittyhawk at cs.bu.edu
> http://cs-mailman.bu.edu/mailman/listinfo/kittyhawk

More information about the Kittyhawk mailing list