Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760320Ab1D0X5F (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:57:05 -0400 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:7489 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753757Ab1D0X5E (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:57:04 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIEAGSruE15LHHJgWdsb2JhbAClfhUBARYmJcRiDoVoBJ0P Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:56:58 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Minchan Kim Cc: Christian Kujau , LKML , xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: oom-killer busy killing tasks Message-ID: <20110427235658.GJ12436@dastard> References: <20110424234655.GC12436@dastard> <20110427022655.GE12436@dastard> <20110427102824.GI12436@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1605 Lines: 42 On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:16:29AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:46:51AM -0700, Christian Kujau wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 at 12:26, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> > What this shows is that VFS inode cache memory usage increases until > >> > about the 550 sample mark before the VM starts to reclaim it with > >> > extreme prejudice. At that point, I'd expect the XFS inode cache to > >> > then shrink, and it doesn't. I've got no idea why the either the > >> > >> Do you remember any XFS changes past 2.6.38 that could be related to > >> something like this? > > > > There's plenty of changes that coul dbe the cause - we've changed > > the inode reclaim to run in the background out of a workqueue as > > well as via the shrinker, so it could even be workqueue starvation > > causing the the problem... > > RCU free starvation is another possibility? > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/25/124 You know, I've been waching that thread with interest, but it didn't seem to be related. However, now that I go look at the config file provided, I see: CONFIG_TINY_RCU=y # CONFIG_SMP is not set CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y which means it probably is the same rcu free starvation problem as reported in that thread. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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/