[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: What's the NFS OOM problem?
Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday August 15, wrote:
>> I have noticed on SLES kernels that when the dirty_*ratios turned down it
>> still uses alot more memory than it should work writeback buffers, it makes
>> me think that with the default setting of 40% that it for some reason
>> may be using all of memory and deadlocking. It does not seem like an
>> NFS only issue, as I believe I have duplicated it with a fast lock
>> setup.
> We seem to have a little patch in SuSE kernels that might be making
> the problem worse .... though I presume it was introduced for a
> reason. I haven't managed to track what that reason was yet.
> What is "a fast lock setup"?? I don't understand.
> NeilBrown

I am not sure what I ment, I may have ment a fast disk setup, and
thought or typed the wrong thing. The machine I duplicated it with
had disks that would sustain 175MB/second (3 striped), 4cpus with local
ram of 32GB. The 2 cpu/4GB/100MB/second machine does not seem
to have the issue. Both machines are opterons, I believe I duplicated
it under SP2, I know I duplicated it SP3 and one of the
post-SP3 kernels. It did not occur under SP1.

Turning down the dirty*ratios seems to make it go away. When I
get a chance I will retest on SP2 and see if it happens there.

I do know (and this may be related) that if on a 32GB machine I
pagelock a large portion of ram (say 28GB) that machine will deadlock
under high IO. The basic symptoms are similar to the writeback
issue the machine responds to ping/sysrq, but logins fail, and any
new process creation fails.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-17 15:47    [W:0.059 / U:7.540 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site