[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090702164459.2ce13498.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:44:59 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"riel\@redhat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
"peterz\@infradead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tytso\@mit.edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-mm\@kvack.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"elladan\@eskimo.com" <elladan@...imo.com>,
"npiggin\@suse.de" <npiggin@...e.de>,
"Barnes\, Jesse" <jesse.barnes@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Found the commit that causes the OOMs
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:41:06 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:57:47 +0100
> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > David. Doesn't it happen OOM if you revert my patch, still?
> >
> > It does happen, and indeed happens in v2.6.30, but requires two adjacent runs
> > of msgctl11 to trigger, rather than usually triggering on the first run. If
> > you interpolate the rest of LTP between the iterations, it doesn't seem to
> > happen at all on v2.6.30. My guess is that with the rest of LTP interpolated,
> > there's either enough time for some cleanup or something triggers a cleanup
> > (the swapfile tests perhaps?).
> >
> > > Befor I go to the trip, I made debugging patch in a hurry. Mel and I
> > > suspect to put the wrong page in lru list.
> > >
> > > This patch's goal is that print page's detail on active anon lru when it
> > > happen OOM. Maybe you could expand your log buffer size.
> >
> > Do you mean to expand the dmesg buffer? That's probably unnecessary: I capture
> > the kernel log over a serial port into a file on another machine.
> >
> > > Could you show me the information with OOM, please ?
> >
> > Attached. It's compressed as there was rather a lot.
> >
> > David
> > ---
>
> Hi, David.
>
> Sorry for late response.
>
> I looked over your captured data when I got home but I didn't find any problem
> in lru page moving scheme.
> As Wu, Kosaki and Rik discussed, I think this issue is also related to process fork bomb.
>
> When I tested msgctl11 in my machine with 2.6.31-rc1, I found that:
>
> 2.6.31-rc1
> real 0m38.628s
> user 0m10.589s
> sys 1m12.613s
>
> vmstat
>
> allocstall 3196
>
> 2.6.31-rc1-revert-mypatch
>
> real 1m17.396s
> user 0m11.193s
> sys 4m3.803s
>
> vmstat
>
> allocstall 584
>
> Sometimes I got OOM, sometime not in with 2.6.31-rc1.
>
> Anyway, the current kernel's test took a rather short time than my reverted patch.
> In addition, the current kernel has small allocstall(direct reclaim)
^^^^^
many
typo
> As you know, my patch was just to remove calling shrink_active_list in case of no swap.
> shrink_active_list function is a big cost function.
> The old shrink_active_list could throttle to fork processes by chance.
> But by removing that function with my patch, we have a high probability to make process fork bomb. Wu, KOSAKI and Rik, does it make sense?
>
> So I think you were just lucky with a unnecessary routine.
> Anyway, AFAIK, Rik is making throttling page reclaim.
> I think it can solve your problem.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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