On 11/21/2016 07:31 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> I am sorry for a late response, but I was offline until this weekend. I
> will try to get to this email ASAP but it might take some time.
No worries. I did some further digging up and here is what I got, which
I believe is rather strange:
struct scan_control {
nr_to_reclaim = 32,
gfp_mask = 37880010,
order = 0,
nodemask = 0x0,
target_mem_cgroup = 0xffff8823990d1400,
priority = 7,
may_writepage = 1,
may_unmap = 1,
may_swap = 0,
may_thrash = 1,
hibernation_mode = 0,
compaction_ready = 0,
nr_scanned = 0,
nr_reclaimed = 0
}
Parsing: 37880010
#define ___GFP_HIGHMEM 0x02
#define ___GFP_MOVABLE 0x08
#define ___GFP_IO 0x40
#define ___GFP_FS 0x80
#define ___GFP_HARDWALL 0x20000
#define ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM 0x400000
#define ___GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM 0x2000000
And initial_priority is 12 (DEF_PRIORITY). Given that nr_scanned is 0
and priority is 7 this means we've gone 5 times through the do {} while
in do_try_to_free_pages. Also total_scanned seems to be 0. Here is the
zone which was being reclaimed :
http://sprunge.us/hQBi
So what's strange is that the softlockup occurred but then the code
proceeded (as evident from the subsequent stack traces), yet inspecting
the reclaim progress it seems rather sad (no progress at all)
>
> On Mon 14-11-16 00:02:57, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Ping on that Michal, in case you've missed it. This seems like a
>> genuine miss of a cond_resched. Can you at least confirm my analysis
>> or is it complete bollocks?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>