| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090630092235.GA17561@csn.ul.ie> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:22:36 +0100 From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, "riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "elladan@...imo.com" <elladan@...imo.com>, "npiggin@...e.de" <npiggin@...e.de>, "Barnes, Jesse" <jesse.barnes@...el.com> Subject: Re: Found the commit that causes the OOMs On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:07:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:07:25 +0100 > Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> 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<dhowells@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> 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: > > > > [<ffffffff8107207e>] ? oom_kill_process.clone.0+0xa9/0x245 > > > > [<ffffffff81072345>] ? __out_of_memory+0x12b/0x142 > > > > [<ffffffff810723c6>] ? out_of_memory+0x6a/0x94 > > > > [<ffffffff81074a90>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x42e/0x51d > > > > [<ffffffff81080843>] ? do_wp_page+0x2c6/0x5f5 > > > > [<ffffffff810820c1>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x5dd/0x62f > > > > [<ffffffff81022c32>] ? do_page_fault+0x1f8/0x20d > > > > [<ffffffff812e069f>] ? 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 <minchan.kim@...il.com> > 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. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists