On Mon 26-06-17 06:04:08, Ivid Suvarna wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 10:00 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 26-06-17 12:59:17, Ivid Suvarna wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have below code which tries to free memory,
> > > do
> > > {
> > > free=shrink_all_memory;
> > > }while(free>0);
> > What is the intention of such a code. It looks quite wrong to me, to
> > be
> > honest.
> >
>
> My case is somewhat similar to hibernation where memory is freed for
> hibernation image and I want to free as much memory as possible until
> no pages can be reclaimed. i.e., until free returns 0.
I would just discourage you from doing something like that. Why would
you want to swap out the working set for example? Isn't something like
dropping the clean page cache sufficient?
> > > But kernel gets into infinite loop because shrink_all_memory always
> > > returns
> > > 1.
> > > When I added some debug statements to `mm/vmscan.c` and found that
> > > it is
> > > because zone_reclaimable() is always true in shrink_zones()
> > >
> > > if (global_reclaim(sc) &&
> > > !reclaimable && zone_reclaimable(zone))
> > > reclaimable = true;
> > >
> > > This issue gets solved by removing the above lines.
> > > I am using linux-kernel 4.4 and imx board.
> > The code has changed quite a bit since 4.4 but in princible
> > zone_reclaimable was a rather dubious heuristic to not fail reclaim
> > too
> > early because that would trigger the OOM in the page allocator path
> > prematurely. This has changed in 4.7 by 0a0337e0d1d1 ("mm, oom:
> > rework
> > oom detection"). zone_reclaimable later renamed to pgdat_reclaimable
> > is
> > gone from the kernel in the latests mmotm kernel.
> >
>
> Suppose for testing purpose say I remove these lines only and not apply
> the whole patch("mm, oom: rework oom detection") as a solution, then
> what are the possible side effects? Are we like skipping something
> (possible reclaimable pages) by doing this?
> And will this effect any other reclaim logics?
as I've said oom detection at that time relied on this check. So you
could trigger oom prematurelly.
> > > Similar Issue is seen here[1]. And it is solved through a patch
> > > removing
> > > the offending lines. But it does not explain why the zone
> > > reclaimable goes
> > > into infinite loop and what causes it? And I ran the C program from
> > > [1]
> > > which is below. And instead of OOM it went on to infinite loop.
> > Yes the previous oom detection could lock up.
> >
>
> Could you explain more on why zone reclaimable be returning true
> always,
> even if there are no pages in LRU list to reclaim?
It will not but the mere fact that basically any freed page would reset
the NR_PAGES_SCANNED counter then chances are that this would keep you
livelocked.
> > > #include <stdlib.h>
> > > #include <string.h>
> > >
> > > int main(void)
> > > {
> > > for (;;) {
> > > void *p = malloc(1024 * 1024);
> > > memset(p, 0, 1024 * 1024);
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Also can this issue be related to memcg as in here "
> > > https://lwn.net/Articles/508923/"; because I see the code flow in my
> > > case
> > > enters:
> > >
> > > if(nr_soft_reclaimed)
> > > reclaimable=true;
> > >
> > > I dont understand memcg correctly. But in my case CONFIG_MEMCG is
> > > not set.
> > then it never reaches that path.
> >
>
> I did not understand. Are you saying that since MEMCG is disabled,
> above if statement should
> not be executed? If that is the case , then why I am entering the if
> block?
If the memcg is disabled then nr_soft_reclaimed will never b true.
[...]
> > > 3. I tried to unmount /dev/shm but was not possible since process
> > > was
> > > using it. Can we release shared memory by any way? I tried `munmap`
> > > but no
> > > use.
> > remove files from /dev/shm?
> >
>
> Since there are some files in shared memory created by process,
> I just tried to remove them and test if the issue still exists. Sadly
> it exists.
Files will exist as long as th process keeps them open. But I still do
not understand what you are after...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
