lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Let's talk about the elephant in the room - the Linux kernel's inability to gracefully handle low memory pressure
Date
On 8/8/19 7:27 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 04:47:18PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 8/7/19 10:51 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>> From 9efda85451062dea4ea287a886e515efefeb1545 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>>> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:15:16 -0400
>>> Subject: [PATCH] psi: trigger the OOM killer on severe thrashing
>>
>> Thanks a lot, perhaps finally we are going to eat the elephant ;)
>>
>> I've tested this by booting with mem=8G and activating browser tabs as
>> long as I could. Then initially the system started thrashing and didn't
>> recover for minutes. Then I realized sysrq+f is disabled... Fixed that
>> up after next reboot, tried lower thresholds, also started monitoring
>> /proc/pressure/memory, and found out that after minutes of not being
>> able to move the cursor, both avg10 and avg60 shows only around 15 for
>> both some and full. Lowered thrashing_oom_level to 10 and (with
>> thrashing_oom_period of 5) the thrashing OOM finally started kicking,
>> and the system recovered by itself in reasonable time.
>
> It sounds like there is a missing annotation. The time has to be going
> somewhere, after all. One *known* missing vector I fixed recently is
> stalls in submit_bio() itself when refaulting, but it's not merged
> yet. Attaching the patch below, can you please test it?

It made a difference, but not enough, it seems. Before the patch I could
observe "io:full avg10" around 75% and "memory:full avg10" around 20%,
after the patch, "memory:full avg10" went to around 45%, while io stayed
the same (BTW should the refaults be discounted from the io counters, so
that the sum is still <=100%?)
As a result I could change the knobs to recover successfully with
thrashing detected for 10s of 40% memory pressure.

Perhaps being low on memory we can't detect refaults so well due to
limited number of shadow entries, or there was genuine non-refault I/O
in the mix. The detection would then probably have to look at both I/O
and memory?

Thanks,
Vlastimil

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-09 16:56    [W:0.080 / U:1.924 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site