On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:36:25 -0600 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > OOM kills due to vastly overestimated free highatomic reserves were > observed: > > ... invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x100cca(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE), order=0 ... > Node 0 Normal free:1482936kB boost:0kB min:410416kB low:739404kB high:1068392kB reserved_highatomic:1073152KB ... > Node 0 Normal: 1292*4kB (ME) 1920*8kB (E) 383*16kB (UE) 220*32kB (ME) 340*64kB (E) 2155*128kB (UE) 3243*256kB (UE) 615*512kB (U) 1*1024kB (M) 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 1477408kB Under what circumstances? > The second line above shows that the OOM kill was due to the following > condition: > > free (1482936kB) - reserved_highatomic (1073152kB) = 409784KB < min (410416kB) > > And the third line shows there were no free pages in any > MIGRATE_HIGHATOMIC pageblocks, which otherwise would show up as type > 'H'. Therefore __zone_watermark_unusable_free() underestimated the > usable free memory by over 1GB, which resulted in the unnecessary OOM > kill above. > > The comments in __zone_watermark_unusable_free() warns about the > potential risk, i.e., > > If the caller does not have rights to reserves below the min > watermark then subtract the high-atomic reserves. This will > over-estimate the size of the atomic reserve but it avoids a search. > > However, it is possible to keep track of free pages in reserved > highatomic pageblocks with a new per-zone counter nr_free_highatomic > protected by the zone lock, to avoid a search when calculating the > usable free memory. And the cost would be minimal, i.e., simple > arithmetics in the highatomic alloc/free/move paths. Is a -stable backport needed? If so, is a Fixes: target identifiable?
