From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 220-245-31-42.static.tpgi.com.au ([220.245.31.42]:43164 "EHLO smtp.sws.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750839AbaGDEdL (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 00:33:11 -0400 From: Russell Coker To: Marc MERLIN Reply-To: russell@coker.com.au Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Is btrfs related to OOM death problems on my 8GB server with both 3.15.1 and 3.14? Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 14:33:06 +1000 Message-ID: <1937402.nCIA16QR35@xev> In-Reply-To: <20140704011938.GO11539@merlins.org> References: <20140704011938.GO11539@merlins.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:19:38 Marc MERLIN wrote: > I upgraded my server from 3.14 to 3.15.1 last week, and since then it's been > running out of memory and deadlocking (panic= doesn't even work). > I downgraded back to 3.14, but I already had the problem once since then. Is there any correlation between such problems and BTRFS operations such as creating snapshots or running a scrub/balance? Back in ~3.10 days I had serious problems with BTRFS memory use when removing multiple snapshots or balancing. But at about 3.13 they all seemed to get fixed. I usually didn't have a kernel panic when I had such problems (although I sometimes had a system lock up solid such that I couldn't even determine what it's problem was). Usually the Oom handler started killing big processes such as chromium when it shouldn't have needed to. Note that I haven't verified that the BTRFS memory use is reasonable in all such situations. Merely that it doesn't use enough to kill my systems. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/