On 05/17/2011 05:34 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Andrew Barry <abarry@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I believe I found a problem in __alloc_pages_slowpath, which allows a process to
>> get stuck endlessly looping, even when lots of memory is available.
>>
>> Running an I/O and memory intensive stress-test I see a 0-order page allocation
>> with __GFP_IO and __GFP_WAIT, running on a system with very little free memory.
>> Right about the same time that the stress-test gets killed by the OOM-killer,
>> the utility trying to allocate memory gets stuck in __alloc_pages_slowpath even
>> though most of the systems memory was freed by the oom-kill of the stress-test.
>>
>> The utility ends up looping from the rebalance label down through the
>> wait_iff_congested continiously. Because order=0, __alloc_pages_direct_compact
>> skips the call to get_page_from_freelist. Because all of the reclaimable memory
>> on the system has already been reclaimed, __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim skips the
>> call to get_page_from_freelist. Since there is no __GFP_FS flag, the block with
>> __alloc_pages_may_oom is skipped. The loop hits the wait_iff_congested, then
>> jumps back to rebalance without ever trying to get_page_from_freelist. This loop
>> repeats infinitely.
>>
>> Is there a reason that this loop is set up this way for 0 order allocations? I
>> applied the below patch, and the problem corrects itself. Does anyone have any
>> thoughts on the patch, or on a better way to address this situation?
>>
>> The test case is pretty pathological. Running a mix of I/O stress-tests that do
>> a lot of fork() and consume all of the system memory, I can pretty reliably hit
>> this on 600 nodes, in about 12 hours. 32GB/node.
>>
>
> It's amazing.
> I think it's _very_ rare but it's possible if test program killed by
> oom has only lots of anonymous pages and allocation tasks try to
> allocate order-0 page with GFP_NOFS.
Unfortunately very rare is a subjective thing. We have been hitting it a couple
times a week in our test lab.
> When the [in]active lists are empty suddenly(But I am not sure how
> come the situation happens.) and we are reclaiming order-0 page,
> compaction and __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim doesn't work. compaction
> doesn't work as it's order-0 page reclaiming. In case of
> __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim, it would work only if we have lru pages
> in [in]active list. But unfortunately we don't have any pages in lru
> list.
> So, last resort is following codes in do_try_to_free_pages.
>
> /* top priority shrink_zones still had more to do? don't OOM, then */
> if (scanning_global_lru(sc) && !all_unreclaimable(zonelist, sc))
> return 1;
>
> But it has a problem, too. all_unreclaimable checks zone->all_unreclaimable.
> zone->all_unreclaimable is set by below condition.
>
> zone->pages_scanned < zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) * 6
>
> If lru list is completely empty, shrink_zone doesn't work so
> zone->pages_scanned would be zero. But as we know, zone_page_state
> isn't exact by per_cpu_pageset. So it might be positive value. After
> all, zone_reclaimable always return true. It means kswapd never set
> zone->all_unreclaimable. So last resort become nop.
>
> In this case, current allocation doesn't have a chance to call
> get_page_from_freelist as Andrew Barry said.
>
> Does it make sense?
> If it is, how about this?
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index ebc7faa..4f64355 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2105,6 +2105,7 @@ restart:
> first_zones_zonelist(zonelist, high_zoneidx, NULL,
> &preferred_zone);
>
> +rebalance:
> /* This is the last chance, in general, before the goto nopage. */
> page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask, nodemask, order, zonelist,
> high_zoneidx, alloc_flags & ~ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS,
> @@ -2112,7 +2113,6 @@ restart:
> if (page)
> goto got_pg;
>
> -rebalance:
> /* Allocate without watermarks if the context allows */
> if (alloc_flags & ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS) {
> page = __alloc_pages_high_priority(gfp_mask, order,
I think your solution is simpler than my patch.
Thanks very much.
-Andrew
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>