lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: process hangs on do_exit when oom happens
From
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Qiang Gao <gaoqiangscut@gmail.com> wrote:
> information about the system is in the attach file "information.txt"
>
> I can not reproduce it in the upstream 3.6.0 kernel..
>
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
>> On Wed 17-10-12 18:23:34, gaoqiang wrote:
>>> I looked up nothing useful with google,so I'm here for help..
>>>
>>> when this happens: I use memcg to limit the memory use of a
>>> process,and when the memcg cgroup was out of memory,
>>> the process was oom-killed however,it cannot really complete the
>>> exiting. here is the some information
>>
>> How many tasks are in the group and what kind of memory do they use?
>> Is it possible that you were hit by the same issue as described in
>> 79dfdacc memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than counter.
>>
>>> OS version: centos6.2 2.6.32.220.7.1
>>
>> Your kernel is quite old and you should be probably asking your
>> distribution to help you out. There were many fixes since 2.6.32.
>> Are you able to reproduce the same issue with the current vanila kernel?
>>
>>> /proc/pid/stack
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> [<ffffffff810597ca>] __cond_resched+0x2a/0x40
>>> [<ffffffff81121569>] unmap_vmas+0xb49/0xb70
>>> [<ffffffff8112822e>] exit_mmap+0x7e/0x140
>>> [<ffffffff8105b078>] mmput+0x58/0x110
>>> [<ffffffff81061aad>] exit_mm+0x11d/0x160
>>> [<ffffffff81061c9d>] do_exit+0x1ad/0x860
>>> [<ffffffff81062391>] do_group_exit+0x41/0xb0
>>> [<ffffffff81077cd8>] get_signal_to_deliver+0x1e8/0x430
>>> [<ffffffff8100a4c4>] do_notify_resume+0xf4/0x8b0
>>> [<ffffffff8100b281>] int_signal+0x12/0x17
>>> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>>
>> This looks strange because this is just an exit part which shouldn't
>> deadlock or anything. Is this stack stable? Have you tried to take check
>> it more times?

Looking at information.txt, I found something interesting

rt_rq[0]:/1314
.rt_nr_running : 1
.rt_throttled : 1
.rt_time : 0.856656
.rt_runtime : 0.000000


cfs_rq[0]:/1314
.exec_clock : 8738.133429
.MIN_vruntime : 0.000001
.min_vruntime : 8739.371271
.max_vruntime : 0.000001
.spread : 0.000000
.spread0 : -9792.255554
.nr_spread_over : 1
.nr_running : 0
.load : 0
.load_avg : 7376.722880
.load_period : 7.203830
.load_contrib : 1023
.load_tg : 1023
.se->exec_start : 282004.715064
.se->vruntime : 18435.664560
.se->sum_exec_runtime : 8738.133429
.se->wait_start : 0.000000
.se->sleep_start : 0.000000
.se->block_start : 0.000000
.se->sleep_max : 0.000000
.se->block_max : 0.000000
.se->exec_max : 77.977054
.se->slice_max : 0.000000
.se->wait_max : 2.664779
.se->wait_sum : 29.970575
.se->wait_count : 102
.se->load.weight : 2

So 1314 is a real time process and

cpu.rt_period_us:
1000000
----------------------
cpu.rt_runtime_us:
0

When did tt move to being a Real Time process (hint: see nr_running
and nr_throttled)?

Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-23 07:21    [W:0.090 / U:4.900 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site