From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p3RNrUwE237697 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:53:30 -0500 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E8554154B350 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HCvvg99zlN4tlqvk for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:56:58 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: oom-killer busy killing tasks Message-ID: <20110427235658.GJ12436@dastard> References: <20110424234655.GC12436@dastard> <20110427022655.GE12436@dastard> <20110427102824.GI12436@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: Minchan Kim Cc: LKML , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:16:29AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:46:51AM -0700, Christian Kujau wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 at 12:26, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> > 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 > >> > >> Do you remember any XFS changes past 2.6.38 that could be related to > >> something like this? > > > > There's plenty of changes that coul dbe the cause - we've changed > > the inode reclaim to run in the background out of a workqueue as > > well as via the shrinker, so it could even be workqueue starvation > > causing the the problem... > > RCU free starvation is another possibility? > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/25/124 You know, I've been waching that thread with interest, but it didn't seem to be related. However, now that I go look at the config file provided, I see: CONFIG_TINY_RCU=y # CONFIG_SMP is not set CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y which means it probably is the same rcu free starvation problem as reported in that thread. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs