Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753926AbZF3Ja2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:30:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751771AbZF3JaS (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:30:18 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f193.google.com ([209.85.221.193]:58944 "EHLO mail-qy0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751603AbZF3JaQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:30:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pZSeZrFh19inM9nLOiXu5WA6t5MgVZOq7uQKlXfQieN6SiD6sgwSGX4FJT1s9GhppZ Xpcv1O/KKXCRjzlv8O3vkoTdjOHauRnV5rHBQXLGP6AUtsQKh7avf1ZdWzMPxz0EdhZ0 w5SVFuhfkJVJ0yBafZNLMgdudZYa3fiUABaPo= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090630092235.GA17561@csn.ul.ie> References: <20090628142239.GA20986@localhost> <20090628151026.GB25076@localhost> <20090629091741.ab815ae7.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> <17678.1246270219@redhat.com> <20090629125549.GA22932@localhost> <29432.1246285300@redhat.com> <28c262360906290800v37f91d7av3642b1ad8b5f0477@mail.gmail.com> <20090629160725.GF5065@csn.ul.ie> <20090630130741.c191d042.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> <20090630092235.GA17561@csn.ul.ie> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:30:16 +0900 Message-ID: <28c262360906300230r627bd553m2d02979f0d3c0a8@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Found the commit that causes the OOMs From: Minchan Kim To: Mel Gorman Cc: David Howells , Wu Fengguang , KOSAKI Motohiro , Johannes Weiner , "riel@redhat.com" , Andrew Morton , LKML , Christoph Lameter , "peterz@infradead.org" , "tytso@mit.edu" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "elladan@eskimo.com" , "npiggin@suse.de" , "Barnes, Jesse" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6033 Lines: 135 On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:07:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:07:25 +0100 >> Mel Gorman wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:00:26AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: >> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:21 PM, David Howells wrote: >> > > > Wu Fengguang wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Sorry! This one compiles OK: >> > > > >> > > > Sadly that doesn't seem to work either: >> > > > >> > > > msgctl11 invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0, oom_adj=0 >> > > > msgctl11 cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0 >> > > > Pid: 30858, comm: msgctl11 Not tainted 2.6.31-rc1-cachefs #146 >> > > > Call Trace: >> > > > [] ? oom_kill_process.clone.0+0xa9/0x245 >> > > > [] ? __out_of_memory+0x12b/0x142 >> > > > [] ? out_of_memory+0x6a/0x94 >> > > > [] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x42e/0x51d >> > > > [] ? do_wp_page+0x2c6/0x5f5 >> > > > [] ? handle_mm_fault+0x5dd/0x62f >> > > > [] ? do_page_fault+0x1f8/0x20d >> > > > [] ? page_fault+0x1f/0x30 >> > > > Mem-Info: >> > > > DMA per-cpu: >> > > > CPU 0: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 >> > > > CPU 1: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 >> > > > DMA32 per-cpu: >> > > > CPU 0: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 38 >> > > > CPU 1: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 106 >> > > > Active_anon:75040 active_file:0 inactive_anon:2031 >> > > > inactive_file:0 unevictable:0 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 >> > > > free:1951 slab:41499 mapped:301 pagetables:60674 bounce:0 >> > > > DMA free:3932kB min:60kB low:72kB high:88kB active_anon:2868kB inactive_anon:384kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:0kB present:15364kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no >> > > > lowmem_reserve[]: 0 968 968 968 >> > > > DMA32 free:3872kB min:3948kB low:4932kB high:5920kB active_anon:297292kB inactive_anon:7740kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:0kB present:992032kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no >> > > > lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0 >> > > > DMA: 7*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 1*64kB 0*128kB 1*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 3932kB >> > > > DMA32: 500*4kB 2*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 1*64kB 0*128kB 1*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 3872kB >> > > > 1928 total pagecache pages >> > > > 0 pages in swap cache >> > > > Swap cache stats: add 0, delete 0, find 0/0 >> > > > Free swap = 0kB >> > > > Total swap = 0kB >> > > > 255744 pages RAM >> > > > 5589 pages reserved >> > > > 238251 pages shared >> > > > 216210 pages non-shared >> > > > Out of memory: kill process 25221 (msgctl11) score 130560 or a child >> > > > Killed process 26379 (msgctl11) >> > > >> > > Totally, I can't understand this situation. >> > > Now, this page allocation is order zero and It is just likely GFP_HIGHUSER. >> > > So it's unlikely interrupt context. >> > >> > The GFP flags that are set are >> > >> > #define __GFP_HIGHMEM (0x02) >> > #define __GFP_MOVABLE (0x08) /* Page is movable */ >> > #define __GFP_WAIT (0x10) /* Can wait and reschedule? */ >> > #define __GFP_IO (0x40) /* Can start physical IO? */ >> > #define __GFP_FS (0x80) /* Can call down to low-level FS? */ >> > #define __GFP_HARDWALL (0x20000) /* Enforce hardwall cpuset memory allocs */ >> > >> > which are fairly permissive in terms of what action can be taken. >> > >> > > Buddy already has enough fallback DMA32, I think. >> > >> > It doesn't really. We are below the minimum watermark. It wouldn't be >> > able to grant the allocation until a few pages had been freed. >> >> Yes. I missed that. >> >> > > Why kernel can't allocate page for order 0 ? >> > > Is it allocator bug ? >> > > >> > >> > If it is, it is not because the allocation failed as the watermarks were not >> > being met. For this situation to be occuring, it has to be scanning the LRU >> > lists and making no forward progress. Odd things to note; >> > >> > o active_anon is very large in comparison to inactive_anon. Is this >> > because there is no swap and they are no longer being rotated? >> >> Yes. My patch's intention was that. >> >> commit 69c854817566db82c362797b4a6521d0b00fe1d8 >> Author: MinChan Kim >> Date: Tue Jun 16 15:32:44 2009 -0700 >> >> > o Slab and pagetables are very large. Is slab genuinely unshrinkable? >> > >> > I think this system might be genuinely OOM. It can't reclaim memory and >> > we are below the minimum watermarks. >> > >> > Is it possible there are pages that are counted as active_anon that in >> > fact are reclaimable because they are on the wrong LRU list? If that was >> > the case, the lack of rotation to inactive list would prevent them >> > getting discovered. >> >> I agree. >> One of them is that "[BUGFIX][PATCH] fix lumpy reclaim lru handiling at >> isolate_lru_pages v2" as Kosaki already said. >> >> Unfortunately, David said it's not. >> But I think your guessing make sense. >> >> David. Doesn't it happen OOM if you revert my patch, still? >> > > In the event the OOM does not happen with the patch reverted, I suggest > you put together a debugging patch that prints out details of all pages > on the active_anon LRU list in the event of an OOM. The intention is to > figure out what pages are on the active_anon list that shouldn't be. Okay. But unfortunately, I will do it after the day after tomorrow. ;-( > -- > Mel Gorman > Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center > University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab > -- Kinds regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/