From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f72.google.com (mail-wm0-f72.google.com [74.125.82.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040166B0069 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f72.google.com with SMTP id l132so56514548wmf.0 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 01:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o9si21100012wji.282.2016.09.19.01.32.17 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 01:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:32:15 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: More OOM problems Message-ID: <20160919083215.GF10785@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20160918202614.GB31286@lucifer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160918202614.GB31286@lucifer> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Linus Torvalds , Tetsuo Handa , Oleg Nesterov , Vladimir Davydov , Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Markus Trippelsdorf , Arkadiusz Miskiewicz , Ralf-Peter Rohbeck , Jiri Slaby , Olaf Hering , Joonsoo Kim , linux-mm On Sun 18-09-16 21:26:14, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > Hi all, > > In case it's helpful - I have experienced these OOM issues invoked > in my case via the nvidia driver and similarly to Linus an order > 3 allocation resulted in killed chromium tabs. I encountered this > even after applying the patch discussed in the original thread at > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/22/184. It's not easily reproducible > but it is happening enough that I could probably check some specific > state when it next occurs or test out a patch to see if it stops it if > that'd be useful. > > I saved a couple OOM's from the last time it occurred, this is on a > 8GiB system with plenty of reclaimable memory: Just for the reference > [350085.038693] Xorg invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x24040c0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP), order=3, oom_score_adj=0 > [350085.038696] Xorg cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0 > [350085.038699] CPU: 0 PID: 2119 Comm: Xorg Tainted: P O 4.7.2-1-custom #1 [...] > [350085.039048] Mem-Info: > [350085.039051] active_anon:861397 inactive_anon:23397 isolated_anon:0 > active_file:146274 inactive_file:144248 isolated_file:0 > unevictable:8 dirty:14587 writeback:0 unstable:0 > slab_reclaimable:697630 slab_unreclaimable:24397 > mapped:79655 shmem:26548 pagetables:7211 bounce:0 > free:25159 free_pcp:235 free_cma:0 > [350085.039054] Node 0 DMA free:15516kB min:136kB low:168kB high:200kB active_anon:0kB inactive_anon:0kB active_file:0kB inactive_file:0kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:15984kB managed:15900kB mlocked:0kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB mapped:0kB shmem:0kB slab_reclaimable:0kB slab_unreclaimable:0kB kernel_stack:0kB pagetables:0kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:0kB local_pcp:0kB free_cma:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? yes > [350085.039058] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 3196 7658 7658 > [350085.039060] Node 0 DMA32 free:45980kB min:28148kB low:35184kB high:42220kB active_anon:1466208kB inactive_anon:43120kB active_file:239740kB inactive_file:234920kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:3617864kB managed:3280092kB mlocked:0kB dirty:21692kB writeback:0kB mapped:131184kB shmem:47588kB slab_reclaimable:1147984kB slab_unreclaimable:37484kB kernel_stack:2976kB pagetables:11512kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:188kB local_pcp:0kB free_cma:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no > [350085.039064] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 4462 4462 45980-(4462*4) = 28132 > [350085.039065] Node 0 Normal free:39140kB min:39296kB low:49120kB high:58944kB active_anon:1979380kB inactive_anon:50468kB active_file:345356kB inactive_file:342072kB unevictable:32kB isolated(anon):0kB isolated(file):0kB present:4702208kB managed:4569312kB mlocked:32kB dirty:36656kB writeback:0kB mapped:187436kB shmem:58604kB slab_reclaimable:1642536kB slab_unreclaimable:60104kB kernel_stack:5040kB pagetables:17332kB unstable:0kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:752kB local_pcp:0kB free_cma:0kB writeback_tmp:0kB pages_scanned:136 all_unreclaimable? no so this is the same thing as in Linus case. All the zones are hitting min wmark so the should_compact_retry() gave up. As mentioned in other email [1] this is inherent limitation of the workaround. Your system is swapless but there is a lot of the reclaimable page cache so Vlastimil's patches should help. [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160919075230.GE10785@dhcp22.suse.cz -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org