linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] 3.10 kernel- oom with about 24G free memory

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ff8b1a0e-690e-74b5-3324-b99994591268@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:13:58 +0800
From:   Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] 3.10 kernel- oom with about 24G free memory

hi Michal,
Thanks for your comment.

On 2017/2/9 21:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 09-02-17 14:26:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 09-02-17 20:54:49, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I get an oom on a linux 3.10 kvm guest OS. when it triggers the oom
>>> it have about 24G free memory(and host OS have about 10G free memory)
>>> and watermark is sure ok.
>>>
>>> I also check about about memcg limit value, also cannot find the
>>> root cause.
>>>
>>> Is there anybody ever meet similar problem and have any idea about it?
>>>
>>> Any comment is more than welcome!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Yisheng Xie
>>>
>>> -------------
>>> [   81.234289] DefSch0200 invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, oom_score_adj=0
>>> [   81.234295] DefSch0200 cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0
>>> [   81.234299] CPU: 3 PID: 8284 Comm: DefSch0200 Tainted: G           O E ----V-------   3.10.0-229.42.1.105.x86_64 #1
>>> [   81.234301] Hardware name: OpenStack Foundation OpenStack Nova, BIOS rel-1.8.1-0-g4adadbd-20161111_105425-HGH1000008200 04/01/2014
>>> [   81.234303]  ffff880ae2900000 000000002b3489d7 ffff880b6cec7c58 ffffffff81608d3d
>>> [   81.234307]  ffff880b6cec7ce8 ffffffff81603d1c 0000000000000000 ffff880b6cd09000
>>> [   81.234311]  ffff880b6cec7cd8 000000002b3489d7 ffff880b6cec7ce0 ffffffff811bdd77
>>> [   81.234314] Call Trace:
>>> [   81.234323]  [<ffffffff81608d3d>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>> [   81.234327]  [<ffffffff81603d1c>] dump_header+0x8e/0x214
>>> [   81.234333]  [<ffffffff811bdd77>] ? mem_cgroup_iter+0x177/0x2b0
>>> [   81.234339]  [<ffffffff8115d83e>] check_panic_on_oom+0x2e/0x60
>>> [   81.234342]  [<ffffffff811c17bf>] mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize+0x34f/0x580
>>
>> OK, so this is a memcg OOM killer which panics because the configuration
>> says so. The OOM report doesn't say so and that is the bug. dump_header
>> is memcg aware and mem_cgroup_out_of_memory initializes oom_control
>> properly. Is this Vanilla kernel?
That means we should raise the limit of that memcg to avoid memcg OOM killer, right?

> 
> I have only now noticed this is 3.10 rather than 4.10 kernel.
> 
> There we simply do
> dump_header(NULL, gfp_mask, order, NULL, nodemask);
> 
> so memcg is NULL and that's why we report global counters. You need
> 2415b9f5cb04 ("memcg: print cgroup information when system panics due to
> panic_on_oom")
> 
I will add this patch to check the memory stat of that memcg.

Thanks again for your help.

Thanks.
Yisheng Xie