On Wed 18-09-13 20:02:39, azurIt wrote: > > CC: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>, "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >On Wed 18-09-13 16:33:06, azurIt wrote: > >> > CC: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>, "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >On Wed 18-09-13 16:03:04, azurIt wrote: > >> >[..] > >> >> I was finally able to get stack of problematic process :) I saved it > >> >> two times from the same process, as Michal suggested (i wasn't able to > >> >> take more). Here it is: > >> >> > >> >> First (doesn't look very helpfull): > >> >> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > >> > > >> >No it is not. > >> > > >> >> Second: > >> >> [<ffffffff810e17d1>] shrink_zone+0x481/0x650 > >> >> [<ffffffff810e2ade>] do_try_to_free_pages+0xde/0x550 > >> >> [<ffffffff810e310b>] try_to_free_pages+0x9b/0x120 > >> >> [<ffffffff81148ccd>] free_more_memory+0x5d/0x60 > >> >> [<ffffffff8114931d>] __getblk+0x14d/0x2c0 > >> >> [<ffffffff8114c973>] __bread+0x13/0xc0 > >> >> [<ffffffff811968a8>] ext3_get_branch+0x98/0x140 > >> >> [<ffffffff81197497>] ext3_get_blocks_handle+0xd7/0xdc0 > >> >> [<ffffffff81198244>] ext3_get_block+0xc4/0x120 > >> >> [<ffffffff81155b8a>] do_mpage_readpage+0x38a/0x690 > >> >> [<ffffffff81155ffb>] mpage_readpages+0xfb/0x160 > >> >> [<ffffffff811972bd>] ext3_readpages+0x1d/0x20 > >> >> [<ffffffff810d9345>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x1c5/0x270 > >> >> [<ffffffff810d9411>] ra_submit+0x21/0x30 > >> >> [<ffffffff810cfb90>] filemap_fault+0x380/0x4f0 > >> >> [<ffffffff810ef908>] __do_fault+0x78/0x5a0 > >> >> [<ffffffff810f2b24>] handle_pte_fault+0x84/0x940 > >> >> [<ffffffff810f354a>] handle_mm_fault+0x16a/0x320 > >> >> [<ffffffff8102715b>] do_page_fault+0x13b/0x490 > >> >> [<ffffffff815cb87f>] page_fault+0x1f/0x30 > >> >> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > >> > > >> >This is the direct reclaim path. You are simply running out of memory > >> >globaly. There is no memcg specific code in that trace. > >> > >> > >> No, i'm not. Here is htop and server graphs from this case: > > > >Bahh, right you are. I didn't look at the trace carefully. It is > >free_more_memory which calls the direct reclaim shrinking. > > > >Sorry about the confusion > > > Happens again and this time i got 5x this: > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > :( it's probably looping very fast so i need to have some luck Or it is looping in the userspace. -- 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>