On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I first noticed call-traces in next-20150204 and tested on v3.19-final >> out of curiosity. >> >> So, oom3 | oom4 | oom5 from LTP tests produces call-traces in my logs >> in both releases. >> Yesterday, I sent a tarball to linux-mm/Shutemov which has material >> for next-20150204. >> The for-lkml tarball has stuff for v3.19-final. >> >> As an example (please see dmesg files in attached tarball(s)): >> ... >> +[ 143.591734] oom03 invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, >> oom_score_adj=0 >> +[ 143.591789] oom03 cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0 >> +[ 143.591828] CPU: 0 PID: 2904 Comm: oom03 Not tainted 3.19.0-1-iniza-small #1 >> +[ 143.591830] Hardware name: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. >> 530U3BI/530U4BI/530U4BH/530U3BI/530U4BI/530U4BH, BIOS 13XK 03/28/2013 >> +[ 143.591831] ffff880034a64800 ffff880032c57bf8 ffffffff8175c66c >> 0000000000000008 >> +[ 143.591835] ffff8800681a54d0 ffff880032c57c88 ffffffff8175ac3a >> ffff880032c57c28 >> +[ 143.591838] ffffffff810c329d 0000000000000206 ffffffff81c74040 >> ffff880032c57c38 >> +[ 143.591841] Call Trace: >> +[ 143.591848] [<ffffffff8175c66c>] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65 >> +[ 143.591852] [<ffffffff8175ac3a>] dump_header+0x9e/0x259 >> +[ 143.591857] [<ffffffff810c329d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x15d/0x200 >> +[ 143.591860] [<ffffffff810c334d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 >> +[ 143.591863] [<ffffffff81184cd2>] oom_kill_process+0x1d2/0x3c0 >> +[ 143.591868] [<ffffffff811ebf40>] mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize+0x630/0x670 >> +[ 143.591871] [<ffffffff811e6ac0>] ? mem_cgroup_reset+0xb0/0xb0 >> +[ 143.591874] [<ffffffff81185628>] pagefault_out_of_memory+0x18/0x90 >> +[ 143.591877] [<ffffffff8106317d>] mm_fault_error+0x8d/0x190 >> +[ 143.591879] [<ffffffff810637a8>] __do_page_fault+0x528/0x600 >> +[ 143.591883] [<ffffffff8113a847>] ? __acct_update_integrals+0xb7/0x120 >> +[ 143.591886] [<ffffffff81765a1b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x40 >> +[ 143.591889] [<ffffffff810a8ac1>] ? vtime_account_user+0x91/0xa0 >> +[ 143.591892] [<ffffffff8117ff83>] ? context_tracking_user_exit+0xb3/0x110 >> +[ 143.591895] [<ffffffff810638b1>] do_page_fault+0x31/0x70 >> +[ 143.591898] [<ffffffff817687b8>] page_fault+0x28/0x30 >> +[ 143.591934] Task in /1 killed as a result of limit of /1 >> +[ 143.591940] memory: usage 1048576kB, limit 1048576kB, failcnt 24350 >> +[ 143.591942] memory+swap: usage 0kB, limit 9007199254740988kB, failcnt 0 >> +[ 143.591943] kmem: usage 0kB, limit 9007199254740988kB, failcnt 0 >> +[ 143.591944] Memory cgroup stats for /1: cache:0KB rss:1048576KB >> rss_huge:0KB mapped_file:0KB writeback:12060KB inactive_anon:524284KB >> active_anon:524192KB inactive_file:0KB active_file:0KB unevictable:0KB >> +[ 143.592007] [ pid ] uid tgid total_vm rss nr_ptes swapents >> oom_score_adj name >> +[ 143.592155] [ 2903] 0 2903 1618 436 9 0 >> 0 oom03 >> +[ 143.592159] [ 2904] 0 2904 788050 245188 616 65535 >> 0 oom03 >> +[ 143.592162] Memory cgroup out of memory: Kill process 2904 (oom03) >> score 921 or sacrifice child >> +[ 143.592167] Killed process 2904 (oom03) total-vm:3152200kB, >> anon-rss:979724kB, file-rss:1028kB >> +[ 144.526653] oom03 invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, >> oom_score_adj=0 > > Looks like we ran out of memory, the limit is 1024MB (1GiB) and we've > hit it with a fail count of 24350. So basically /1 hit the limit and > got OOM killed. Isn't that what you were testing for? How was the > expected victim? > You mean that was "expected"? What do you mean by "How was the expected victim?"? You need some more informations about my system? - Sedat - -- 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>