Re: Question about OOM-Killer

James Washer
2005-07-25T19:11:30Z

Pretty typical message here...
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd1
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA per-cpu:
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal per-cpu:
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem per-cpu: empty
Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel:
Jul 6 17:31:31 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): SIGHUP received, reloading all databases
Jul 6 17:31:37 p6 kernel: Free pages: 16236kB (0kB HighMem)
Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[9041]: session closed for user root
Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[10645]: session closed for user root
Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[8044]: session closed for user root
Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[7228]: session closed for user root
Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[16136]: session closed for user root
Jul 6 17:31:48 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory" to a read-only configuration source at position 0
Jul 6 17:31:49 p6 kernel: Active:596167 inactive:854867 dirty:624740 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:4059 slab:52688 mapped:595231 pagetables:4862
Jul 6 17:32:00 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readwrite:/home/washer/.gconf" to a writable configuration source at position 1
Jul 6 17:32:02 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA free:20kB min:24kB low:28kB high:36kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:1 all_unreclaimable? yes
Jul 6 17:32:04 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults" to a read-only configuration source at position 2
Jul 6 17:32:06 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 7152 7152
Jul 6 17:32:11 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal free:16216kB min:10808kB low:13508kB high:16212kB active:2384668kB inactive:3419468kB present:7323648kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem free:0kB min:128kB low:160kB high:192kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA: 1*4kB 0*8kB 1*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 20kB
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal: 34*4kB 192*8kB 53*16kB 92*32kB 2*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 1*2048kB 2*4096kB = 16216kB
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem: empty
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Swap cache: add 48, delete 48, find 0/0, race 0+0
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Free swap = 8385728kB
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Total swap = 8385920kB
Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Out of Memory: Killed process 10475 (firefox-bin).

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:00:48 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:

>
> James,
>
> Can you send the OOM killer output?
>
> I dont know which devices part of an x86-64 system should
> be limited to 16Mb of physical addressing. Andi?
>
> I don't think that any devices should have 16MB limitation
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:36:50PM -0700, James Washer wrote:
> > Sorry, I should have added...
> > 2.6.11.10,
> > x86-64 dual proc (Intel Xeon 3.4GHz)
> > 6GiB ram
> > Intel Corporation 82801EB (ICH5) SATA Controller (rev 0)
> > Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
> > Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 6Y160M0 Rev: YAR5
> > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05
> > Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00
> > Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 7Y250M0 Rev: YAR5
> > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:21:01 -0700
> > James Washer <washer@trlp.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm chasing down a system problem where the DMA memory (x86-64, god knows why it is using DMA memory)
> > drops below the minimum, and the OOM-Killer is fired off.
> > >
> > > It just strikes me odd that the OOM-Killer would be called at all for DMA memory.
> > What's the chance of regaining DMA memory by killing user land processes?
> > >
> > > I'll admit, I know very little about linux VM, so perhaps I'm missing how oom killing can be helpful here.