Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:52:42 +0900 | From | Minchan Kim <> | Subject | Re: abnormal OOM killer message |
| |
Thanks for good comment, Mel.
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:36:11 +0100 Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:49:58PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:24:54 +0900 > > ????????? <chungki.woo@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thank you very much for replys. > > > > > > But I think it seems not to relate with stale data problem in compcache. > > > My question was why last chance to allocate memory was failed. > > > When OOM killer is executed, memory state is not a condition to > > > execute OOM killer. > > > Specially, there are so many pages of order 0. And allocating order is zero. > > > I think that last allocating memory should have succeeded. > > > That's my worry. > > > > Yes. I agree with you. > > Mel. Could you give some comment in this situation ? > > Is it possible that order 0 allocation is failed > > even there are many pages in buddy ? > > > > Not ordinarily. If it happens, I tend to suspect that the free list data > is corrupted and would put a check in __rmqueue() that looked like > > BUG_ON(list_empty(&area->free_list) && area->nr_free);
If memory is corrupt, it would be not satisfied with both condition. It would be better to ORed condition.
BUG_ON(list_empty(&area->free_list) || area->nr_free);
> The second question is, why are we in direct reclaim this far above the > watermark? It should only be kswapd that is doing any reclaim at that > point. That makes me wonder again are the free lists corrupted.
It does make sense!
> The other possibility is that the zonelist used for allocation in the > troubled path contains no populated zones. I would put a BUG_ON check in > get_page_from_freelist() to check if the first zone in the zonelist has no > pages. If that bug triggers, it might explain why OOMs are triggering for > no good reason.
Yes. Chungki. Could you put the both BUG_ON in each function and try to reproduce the problem ?
> I consider both of those possibilities abnormal though. > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask|__GFP_HARDWALL, order, > > > <== this is last chance > > > zonelist, ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH|ALLOC_CPUSET); > > > <== uses ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH > > > if (page) > > > goto got_pg; > > > > > > out_of_memory(zonelist, gfp_mask, order); > > > goto restart; > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Let me have a question. > > > > Now the system has 79M as total swap. > > > > It's bigger than system memory size. > > > > Is it possible in compcache? > > > > Can we believe the number? > > > > > > Yeah, It's possible. 79Mbyte is data size can be swap. > > > It's not compressed data size. It's just original data size. > > > > You means your pages with 79M are swap out in compcache's reserved > > memory? > > > > -- > Mel Gorman > Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center > University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
-- Kind regards, Minchan Kim
| |