lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: Fix kswapd livelock on single core, no preempt kernel
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 01:44 +0800, Mike Waychison wrote:
>>> On a single core system with kernel preemption disabled, it is possible
>>> for the memory system to be so taxed that kswapd cannot make any forward
>>> progress.  This can happen when most of system memory is tied up as
>>> anonymous memory without swap enabled, causing kswapd to consistently
>>> fail to achieve its watermark goals.  In turn, sleeping_prematurely()
>>> will consistently return true and kswapd_try_to_sleep() to never invoke
>>> schedule().  This causes the kswapd thread to stay on the CPU in
>>> perpetuity and keeps other threads from processing oom-kills to reclaim
>>> memory.
>>>
>>> The cond_resched() instance in balance_pgdat() is never called as the
>>> loop that iterates from DEF_PRIORITY down to 0 will always set
>>> all_zones_ok to true, and not set it to false once we've passed
>>> DEF_PRIORITY as zones that are marked ->all_unreclaimable are not
>>> considered in the "all_zones_ok" evaluation.
>>>
>>> This change modifies kswapd_try_to_sleep to ensure that we enter
>>> scheduler at least once per invocation if needed.  This allows kswapd to
>>> get off the CPU and allows other threads to die off from the OOM killer
>>> (freeing memory that is otherwise unavailable in the process).
>> your description suggests zones with all_unreclaimable set. but in this
>> case sleeping_prematurely() will return false instead of true, kswapd
>> will do sleep then. is there anything I missed?

Actually, I don't see where sleeping_prematurely() would return false
if any zone has ->all_unreclaimable set. In this case, the order was
0, so we return !all_zones_ok, which is false because
!zone_watermark_ok_safe(ZONE_DMA32).

>
> Debugging this, I didn't get a dump from oom-kill as it never ran
> (until I binary patched in a cond_resched() into live hung machines --
> this reproduced in a VM).
>
> I was however able to capture the following data while it was hung:
>
>
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/active_anon : long long = 773
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/active_file : long long = 6
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/anon_pages : long long = 1,329
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/bounce : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/dirtied : long long = 4,425
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/file_dirty : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/file_mapped : long long = 5
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/file_pages : long long = 330
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/free_pages : long long = 2,018
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/inactive_anon : long long = 865
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/inactive_file : long long = 13
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/kernel_stack : long long = 10
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/mlock : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/pagetable : long long = 74
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/shmem : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/slab_reclaimable : long long = 54
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/slab_unreclaimable :
> long long = 130
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/unevictable : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/writeback : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone0/written : long long = 47,184
>
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/active_anon : long long = 359,251
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/active_file : long long = 67
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/anon_pages : long long = 441,180
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/bounce : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/dirtied : long long = 6,457,125
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/file_dirty : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/file_mapped : long long = 134
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/file_pages : long long = 38,090
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/free_pages : long long = 1,630
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/inactive_anon : long
> long = 119,779
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/inactive_file : long long = 81
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/kernel_stack : long long = 173
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/mlock : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/pagetable : long long = 15,222
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/shmem : long long = 1
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/slab_reclaimable : long
> long = 1,677
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/slab_unreclaimable :
> long long = 7,152
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/unevictable : long long = 0
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/writeback : long long = 8
> /cloud/vmm/host/backend/perfmetric/node0/zone1/written : long long = 16,639,708
>
> These value were static while the machine was hung up in kswapd.  I
> unfortunately don't have the low/min/max or lowmem watermarks handy.
>
> From stepping through with gdb, I was able to determine that
> ZONE_DMA32 would fail zone_watermark_ok_safe(), causing a scan   up to
> end_zone == 1.  If memory serves, it would not get the
> ->all_unreclaimable flag.  I didn't get the chance to root cause this
> internal inconsistency though.
>
> FYI, this was seen with a 2.6.39-based kernel with no-numa, no-memcg
> and swap-enabled.
>
> If I get the chance, I can reproduce and look at this closer to try
> and root cause why zone_reclaimable() would return true, but I won't
> be able to do that until after the holidays -- sometime in January.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-14 05:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site