From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p3R2NSEO192162 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:23:29 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2FA5A4170A0 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mLG4vTnClCsuFALd for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:26:55 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: oom-killer busy killing tasks Message-ID: <20110427022655.GE12436@dastard> References: <20110424234655.GC12436@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christian Kujau Cc: LKML , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:19:24AM -0700, Christian Kujau wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 at 09:46, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I'd say they are not being reclaimmmed because the VFS hasn't let go > > of them yet. Can you also dump /proc/sys/fs/{dentry,inode}-state so > > we can see if the VFS has released the inodes such that they can be > > reclaimed by XFS? > > Please see http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.39-rc4/oom/ > > - slabinfo-4.txt.bz2, contains /proc/sys/fs/{dentry,inode}-state and Ok, so looking at slabinfo-5.txt.bz2, this is the pattern of dentry, VFS inode and XFS inode use patterns: http://userweb.kernel.org/~dgc/slab-usage.png What this shows is that VFS inode cache memory usage increases until about the 550 sample mark before the VM starts to reclaim it with extreme prejudice. At that point, I'd expect the XFS inode cache to then shrink, and it doesn't. I've got no idea why the either the shrinker or background reclaim is not reclaiming and freeing inodes, but it is the reason why the system OOMs. Can you check if there are any blocked tasks nearing OOM (i.e. "echo w > /proc/sysrq-trigger") so we can see if XFS inode reclaim is stuck somewhere? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs