lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 0/7] improve memcg oom killer robustness v2
    On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:04:55PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
    > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:03:04PM +0200, azurIt wrote:
    > > > CC: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "David Rientjes" <rientjes@google.com>, "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
    > > >On Tue 17-09-13 13:15:35, azurIt wrote:
    > > >[...]
    > > >> Is something unusual on this stack?
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> [<ffffffff810d1a5e>] dump_header+0x7e/0x1e0
    > > >> [<ffffffff810d195f>] ? find_lock_task_mm+0x2f/0x70
    > > >> [<ffffffff810d1f25>] oom_kill_process+0x85/0x2a0
    > > >> [<ffffffff810d24a8>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0xa8/0xf0
    > > >> [<ffffffff8110fb76>] mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize+0x2e6/0x310
    > > >> [<ffffffff8110efc0>] ? mem_cgroup_uncharge_page+0x40/0x40
    > > >> [<ffffffff810d2703>] pagefault_out_of_memory+0x13/0x130
    > > >> [<ffffffff81026f6e>] mm_fault_error+0x9e/0x150
    > > >> [<ffffffff81027424>] do_page_fault+0x404/0x490
    > > >> [<ffffffff810f952c>] ? do_mmap_pgoff+0x3dc/0x430
    > > >> [<ffffffff815cb87f>] page_fault+0x1f/0x30
    > > >
    > > >This is a regular memcg OOM killer. Which dumps messages about what is
    > > >going to do. So no, nothing unusual, except if it was like that for ever
    > > >which would mean that oom_kill_process is in the endless loop. But a
    > > >single stack doesn't tell us much.
    > > >
    > > >Just a note. When you see something hogging a cpu and you are not sure
    > > >whether it might be in an endless loop inside the kernel it makes sense
    > > >to take several snaphosts of the stack trace and see if it changes. If
    > > >not and the process is not sleeping (there is no schedule on the trace)
    > > >then it might be looping somewhere waiting for Godot. If it is sleeping
    > > >then it is slightly harder because you would have to identify what it is
    > > >waiting for which requires to know a deeper context.
    > > >--
    > > >Michal Hocko
    > > >SUSE Labs
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I was finally able to get stack of problematic process :) I saved it two times from the same process, as Michal suggested (i wasn't able to take more). Here it is:
    > >
    > > First (doesn't look very helpfull):
    > > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
    > >
    > >
    > > Second:
    > > [<ffffffff810e17d1>] shrink_zone+0x481/0x650
    > > [<ffffffff810e2ade>] do_try_to_free_pages+0xde/0x550
    > > [<ffffffff810e310b>] try_to_free_pages+0x9b/0x120
    > > [<ffffffff81148ccd>] free_more_memory+0x5d/0x60
    > > [<ffffffff8114931d>] __getblk+0x14d/0x2c0
    > > [<ffffffff8114c973>] __bread+0x13/0xc0
    > > [<ffffffff811968a8>] ext3_get_branch+0x98/0x140
    > > [<ffffffff81197497>] ext3_get_blocks_handle+0xd7/0xdc0
    > > [<ffffffff81198244>] ext3_get_block+0xc4/0x120
    > > [<ffffffff81155b8a>] do_mpage_readpage+0x38a/0x690
    > > [<ffffffff81155ffb>] mpage_readpages+0xfb/0x160
    > > [<ffffffff811972bd>] ext3_readpages+0x1d/0x20
    > > [<ffffffff810d9345>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x1c5/0x270
    > > [<ffffffff810d9411>] ra_submit+0x21/0x30
    > > [<ffffffff810cfb90>] filemap_fault+0x380/0x4f0
    > > [<ffffffff810ef908>] __do_fault+0x78/0x5a0
    > > [<ffffffff810f2b24>] handle_pte_fault+0x84/0x940
    > > [<ffffffff810f354a>] handle_mm_fault+0x16a/0x320
    > > [<ffffffff8102715b>] do_page_fault+0x13b/0x490
    > > [<ffffffff815cb87f>] page_fault+0x1f/0x30
    > > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
    >
    > Ah, crap. I'm sorry. You even showed us this exact trace before in
    > another context, but I did not fully realize what __getblk() is doing.
    >
    > My subsequent patches made a charge attempt return -ENOMEM without
    > reclaim if the memcg is under OOM. And so the reason you have these
    > reclaim livelocks is because __getblk never fails on -ENOMEM. When
    > the allocation returns -ENOMEM, it invokes GLOBAL DIRECT RECLAIM and
    > tries again in an endless loop. The memcg code would previously just
    > loop inside the charge, reclaiming and killing, until the allocation
    > succeeded. But the new code relies on the fault stack being unwound
    > to complete the OOM kill. And since the stack is not unwound with
    > __getblk() looping around the allocation there is no more memcg
    > reclaim AND no memcg OOM kill, thus no chance of exiting.
    >
    > That code is weird but really old, so it may take a while to evaluate
    > all the callers as to whether this can be changed.
    >
    > In the meantime, I would just allow __getblk to bypass the memcg limit
    > when it still can't charge after reclaim. Does the below get your
    > machine back on track?

    Scratch that. The idea is reasonable but the implementation is not
    fully cooked yet. I'll send you an update.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-09-18 20:41    [W:2.741 / U:0.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site