On 09.12.2016 22:42, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 12/09/2016 07:01 PM, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
On 09.12.2016 18:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 09-12-16 17:58:14, Gerhard Wiesinger wrote:
On 09.12.2016 17:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
[97883.882611] Mem-Info:
[97883.883747] active_anon:2915 inactive_anon:3376 isolated_anon:0
active_file:3902 inactive_file:3639 isolated_file:0
unevictable:0 dirty:205 writeback:0 unstable:0
slab_reclaimable:9856 slab_unreclaimable:9682
mapped:3722 shmem:59 pagetables:2080 bounce:0
free:748 free_pcp:15 free_cma:0
there is still some page cache which doesn't seem to be neither dirty
nor under writeback. So it should be theoretically reclaimable but for
some reason we cannot seem to reclaim that memory.
There is still some anonymous memory and free swap so we could reclaim
it as well but it all seems pretty down and the memory pressure is
really large
Yes, it might be large on the update situation, but that should be handled
by a virtual memory system by the kernel, right?
Well this is what we try and call it memory reclaim. But if we are not
able to reclaim anything then we eventually have to give up and trigger
the OOM killer.
I'm not familiar with the Linux implementation of the VM system in
detail. But can't you reserve as much memory for the kernel (non
pageable) at least that you can swap everything out (even without
killing a process at least as long there is enough swap available, which
should be in all of my cases)?
We don't have such bulletproof reserves. In this case the amount of
anonymous memory that can be swapped out is relatively low, and either
something is pinning it in memory, or it's being swapped back in quickly.
Now the information that 4.4 made a difference is
interesting. I do not really see any major differences in the reclaim
between 4.3 and 4.4 kernels. The reason might be somewhere else as well.
E.g. some of the subsystem consumes much more memory than before.
Just curious, what kind of filesystem are you using?
I'm using ext4 only with virt-* drivers (storage, network). But it is
definitly a virtual memory allocation/swap usage issue.
Could you try some
additional debugging. Enabling reclaim related tracepoints might tell us
more. The following should tell us more
mount -t tracefs none /trace
echo 1 > /trace/events/vmscan/enable
echo 1 > /trace/events/writeback/writeback_congestion_wait/enable
cat /trace/trace_pipe > trace.log
Collecting /proc/vmstat over time might be helpful as well
mkdir logs
while true
do
cp /proc/vmstat vmstat.$(date +%s)
sleep 1s
done
Activated it. But I think it should be very easy to trigger also on your
side. A very small configured VM with a program running RAM
allocations/writes (I guess you have some testing programs already)
should be sufficient to trigger it. You can also use the attached
program which I used to trigger such situations some years ago. If it
doesn't help try to reduce the available CPU for the VM and also I/O
(e.g. use all CPU/IO on the host or other VMs).
Well it's not really a surprise that if the VM is small enough and
workload large enough, OOM killer will kick in. The exact threshold
might have changed between kernel versions for a number of possible reasons.
IMHO: The OOM killer should NOT kick in even on the highest workloads if
there is swap available.
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg113665.html
Yeah, but I do think that "oom when you have 156MB free and 7GB
reclaimable, and haven't even tried swapping" counts as obviously
wrong.
So Linus also thinks that trying swapping is a must have. And there always was enough swap available in my cases. Then it should swap out/swapin all the time (which worked well in kernel 2.4/2.6 times).
Another topic: Why does the kernel prefer to swap in/swap out instead of
use cache pages/buffers (see vmstat 1 output below)?
BTW: Don't know if you have seen also my original message on the kernel
mailinglist only:
Linus had also OOM problems with 1kB RAM requests and a lot of free RAM
(use a translation service for the german page):
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/30/64
https://marius.bloggt-in-braunschweig.de/2016/11/17/linuxkernel-4-74-8-und-der-oom-killer/
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg113661.html
Yeah we were involved in the last one. The regressions were about
high-order allocations
though (the 1kB premise turned out to be misinterpretation) and there
were regressions
for those in 4.7/4.8. But yours are order-0.
With kernel 4.7./4.8 it was really reaproduceable at every dnf update.
With 4.9rc8 it has been much much better. So something must have
changed, too.
As far as I understood it the order is 2^order kB pagesize. I don't
think it makes a difference when swap is not used which order the memory
allocation request is.
BTW: What were the commit that introduced the regression anf fixed it in
4.9?
Thnx.
Ciao,
Gerhard
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system--
------cpu-----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy
id wa st
3 0 45232 9252 1956 109644 428 232 3536 416 4310 4228 38 36
14 7 6
2 0 45124 10524 1960 110192 124 0 528 96 2478 2243 45 29
20 5 1
4 1 45136 3896 1968 114388 84 64 4824 260 2689 2655 38 31
15 12 4
1 1 45484 10648 288 114032 88 356 20028 1132 5078 5122 24
45 4 21 5
2 0 44700 8092 1240 115204 728 0 2624 536 4204 4413 38 38
18 3 4
2 0 44852 10272 1240 111324 52 212 2736 1548 3311 2970 41 36
12 9 2
4 0 44844 10716 1240 111216 8 0 8 72 3067 3287 42 30
18 7 3
3 0 44828 10268 1248 111280 16 0 16 60 2139 1610 43 29
11 1 17
1 0 44828 11644 1248 111192 0 0 0 0 2367 1911 50 32
14 0 3
4 0 44820 9004 1248 111284 8 0 8 0 2207 1867 55 31
14 0 1
7 0 45664 6360 1816 109264 20 868 3076 968 4122 3783 43 37
17 0 3
4 4 46880 6732 1092 101960 244 1332 7968 3352 5836 6431 17
51 1 27 4
10 2 47064 6940 1364 96340 20 196 25708 1720 7346 6447 13 70
0 18 1
15 3 47572 3672 2156 92604 68 580 29244 1692 5640 5102 5 57
0 37 2
12 4 48300 6740 352 87924 80 948 36208 2948 7287 7955 7 73
0 18 2
12 9 50796 4832 584 88372 0 2496 16064 3312 3425 4185 2 30
0 66 1
10 9 52636 3608 2068 90132 56 1840 24552 2836 4123 4099 3 43
0 52 1
7 11 56740 10376 424 86204 184 4152 33116 5628 7949 7952 4
67 0 23 6
10 4 61384 8000 776 86956 644 4784 28380 5484 7965 9935 7 64
0 26 2
11 4 68052 5260 1028 87268 1244 7164 23380 8684 10715 10863 8
71 0 20 1
11 2 72244 3924 1052 85160 980 4264 23756 4940 7231 7930 8 62
0 29 1
6 1 76388 5352 4948 86204 1292 4640 27380 5244 7816 8714 10
63 0 22 5
8 5 77376 4168 1944 86528 3064 3684 19876 4104 9325 9076 9
64 1 22 4
5 4 75464 7272 1240 81684 3912 3188 25656 4100 9973 10515 11
65 0 20 4
5 2 77364 4440 1852 84744 528 2304 28588 3304 6605 6311 7
61 8 18 4
9 2 81648 3760 3188 86012 440 4588 17928 5368 6377 6320 8
48 2 40 4
6 2 82404 6608 668 86092 2016 2084 24396 3564 7440 7510 8
66 1 20 4
4 4 81728 3796 2260 87764 1392 984 18512 1684 5196 4652 6
48 0 42 4
8 4 84700 6436 1428 85744 1188 3708 20256 4364 6405 5998 9
63 0 24 4
3 1 86360 4836 924 87700 1388 2692 19460 3504 5498 6117 8
48 0 34 9
4 4 87916 3768 176 86592 2788 3220 19664 4032 7285 8342 19
63 0 10 9
4 4 89612 4952 180 88076 1516 2988 17560 3936 5737 5794 7
46 0 37 10
7 5 87768 12244 196 87856 3344 2544 22248 3348 6934 7497 8
59 0 22 10
10 1 83436 4768 840 96452 4096 836 20100 1160 6191 6614 21 52
0 13 14
0 6 82868 6972 348 91020 1108 520 4896 568 3274 4214 11 26
29 30 4
--
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>