Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:28:59 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: Out of Memory: Killed process 16498 (java). |
| |
On Fri, Jan 20 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 20 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:11:45PM -0000, Andy Chittenden wrote: > > > > > > > DMA free:20kB min:24kB low:28kB high:36kB active:0kB inactive:0kB > > > > > > > present:12740kB pages_scanned:4 all_unreclaimable? yes > > > > > > > > > > > > Note we only scanned 4 pages before we gave up. > > > > > > Larry Woodman came up with this patch below that clears all_unreclaimable > > > > > > when in two places where we've made progress at freeing up some pages > > > > > > which has helped oom situations for some of our users. > > > > > > > > > > That won't help - there are exactly zero pages on ZONE_DMA's LRU. > > > > > > > > > > The problem appears to be that all of the DMA zone has been gobbled up by > > > > > the BIO layer. It seems quite inappropriate that a modern 64-bit machine > > > > > is allocating tons of disk I/O pages from the teeny ZONE_DMA. I'm > > > > > suspecting that someone has gone and set a queue's ->bounce_gfp to the wrong > > > > > thing. > > > > > > > > > > Jens, would you have time to investigate please? > > > > > > > > Certainly, I'll get this tested and fixed this afternoon. > > > > > > Wow ;) > > > > > > You may find it's an x86_64 glitch - setting max_[low_]pfn wrong down in > > > the bowels of the arch mm init code, something like that. > > > > > > I thought it might have been a regression which came in when we added > > > ZONE_DMA32 but the RH reporter is based on 2.6.14-<redhat stuff>, and he > > > didn't have ZONE_DMA32. > > > > Sorry, spoke too soon, I thought this was the 'bio/scsi leaks' which > > most likely is a scsi leak that also results in the bios not getting > > freed. > > > > This DMA32 zone shortage looks like a vm short coming, you're likely the > > better candidate to fix that :-) > > It's not ZONE_DMA32. It's the 12MB ZONE_DMA which is being exhausted on > this 4GB 64-bit machine. > > Andy put a dump_stack() into the oom code and it pointed at > > > Call Trace:<ffffffff8014d7bc>{out_of_memory+48} > <ffffffff8014f4b0>{__alloc_pages+536} > <ffffffff80169788>{bio_alloc_bioset+232} > <ffffffff80169d03>{bio_copy_user+218} > <ffffffff801bd657>{blk_rq_map_user+136} > <ffffffff801c0008>{sg_io+328} > <ffffffff801c047c>{scsi_cmd_ioctl+491} > <ffffffff88005e22>{:ide_core:generic_ide_ioctl+631} > <ffffffff88202d0c>{:sd_mod:sd_ioctl+371} > <ffffffff802a6db6>{schedule_timeout+158} > <ffffffff801bf165>{blkdev_ioctl+1365} > <ffffffff80243cb2>{sys_sendto+251} > <ffffffff801751e5>{__pollwait+0} > <ffffffff8016b16a>{block_ioctl+25} > <ffffffff801749f4>{do_ioctl+24} <ffffffff80174c46>{vfs_ioctl+541} > <ffffffff80174cb4>{sys_ioctl+89}
Hmm strange, what kind of device is this? I'm guessing it's not ISA. Andy, can you try and boot with this applied?
Did the blk_max_low_pfn stuff get a different meaning with the addition of the DMA32 zone?
diff --git a/block/ll_rw_blk.c b/block/ll_rw_blk.c index 8e27d0a..ab897de 100644 --- a/block/ll_rw_blk.c +++ b/block/ll_rw_blk.c @@ -636,6 +636,8 @@ void blk_queue_bounce_limit(request_queu { unsigned long bounce_pfn = dma_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT; + printk("bounce: queue %p, setting pfn %lu, max_low %lu\n", q, bounce_pfn, blk_max_low_pfn); + /* * set appropriate bounce gfp mask -- unfortunately we don't have a * full 4GB zone, so we have to resort to low memory for any bounces. -- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |