On 19.02.2014 [18:03:03 +0100], Michal Hocko wrote:
> We had a report about strange OOM killer strikes on a PPC machine
> although there was a lot of swap free and a tons of anonymous memory
> which could be swapped out. In the end it turned out that the OOM was
> a side effect of zone reclaim which wasn't doesn't unmap and swapp out
> and so the system was pushed to the OOM. Although this sounds like a bug
> somewhere in the kswapd vs. zone reclaim vs. direct reclaim interaction
> numactl on the said hardware suggests that the zone reclaim should
> have been set in the first place:
> node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
> node 0 size: 0 MB
> node 0 free: 0 MB
> node 2 cpus:
> node 2 size: 7168 MB
> node 2 free: 6019 MB
> node distances:
> node 0 2
> 0: 10 40
> 2: 40 10
>
> So all the CPUs are associated with Node0 which doesn't have any memory
> while Node2 contains all the available memory. Node distances cause an
> automatic zone_reclaim_mode enabling.
>
> Zone reclaim is intended to keep the allocations local but this doesn't
> make any sense on the memory less nodes. So let's exlcude such nodes
> for init_zone_allows_reclaim which evaluates zone reclaim behavior and
> suitable reclaim_nodes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> I haven't got to testing this so I am sending this as an RFC for now.
> But does this look reasonable?
>
> mm/page_alloc.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 3e953f07edb0..4a44bdc7a8cf 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1855,7 +1855,7 @@ static void __paginginit init_zone_allows_reclaim(int nid)
> {
> int i;
>
> - for_each_online_node(i)
> + for_each_node_state(i, N_HIGH_MEMORY)
> if (node_distance(nid, i) <= RECLAIM_DISTANCE)
> node_set(i, NODE_DATA(nid)->reclaim_nodes);
> else
> @@ -4901,7 +4901,8 @@ void __paginginit free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size,
>
> pgdat->node_id = nid;
> pgdat->node_start_pfn = node_start_pfn;
> - init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid);
> + if (node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY))
> + init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid);
I'm still new to this code, but isn't this saying that if a node has no
memory, then it shouldn't reclaim from any node? But, for a memoryless
node to ensure progress later if reclaim is necessary, it *must* reclaim
from other nodes? So wouldn't we want to set reclaim_nodes() in that
case to node_states[N_MEMORY]?
Thanks,
Nish
--
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>