* oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! @ 2005-06-28 16:24 Anthony DiSante 2005-06-28 16:44 ` Alexander Nyberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Anthony DiSante @ 2005-06-28 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Hello, I'm running a 2.6.11 kernel. I have 1 gig of RAM and 1 gig of swap. Lately when my RAM gets full, the oom-killer takes out either Mozilla or Thunderbird (my two biggest memory hogs), even though my swap space is only 20% full. I still have ~800 MB of free swap space, so shouldn't the kernel push Moz or T-bird into swap instead of oom-killing it? At their maximum memory-hogging capacity, neither Moz nor T-bird is ever using more than 200 MB. Thanks, Anthony DiSante http://nodivisions.com/ Jun 28 12:09:09 soma oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x80d2 ... Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Free swap = 781012kB Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Total swap = 987988kB Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 30787 (thunderbird-bin). Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18112 (thunderbird-bin). Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18116 (thunderbird-bin). Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18117 (thunderbird-bin). Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18119 (thunderbird-bin). Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 8857 (thunderbird-bin). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! 2005-06-28 16:24 oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! Anthony DiSante @ 2005-06-28 16:44 ` Alexander Nyberg 2005-06-28 16:52 ` Anthony DiSante 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Alexander Nyberg @ 2005-06-28 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony DiSante; +Cc: linux-kernel > I'm running a 2.6.11 kernel. I have 1 gig of RAM and 1 gig of swap. Lately > when my RAM gets full, the oom-killer takes out either Mozilla or > Thunderbird (my two biggest memory hogs), even though my swap space is only > 20% full. I still have ~800 MB of free swap space, so shouldn't the kernel > push Moz or T-bird into swap instead of oom-killing it? At their maximum > memory-hogging capacity, neither Moz nor T-bird is ever using more than 200 MB. > > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x80d2 > ... > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Free swap = 781012kB > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Total swap = 987988kB > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 30787 (thunderbird-bin). > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18112 (thunderbird-bin). > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18116 (thunderbird-bin). > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18117 (thunderbird-bin). > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18119 (thunderbird-bin). > Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 8857 (thunderbird-bin). > You cut out the important part where it printed out memory usage information at the time of the OOM, please post it ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! 2005-06-28 16:44 ` Alexander Nyberg @ 2005-06-28 16:52 ` Anthony DiSante 2005-06-29 12:57 ` Alexander Nyberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Anthony DiSante @ 2005-06-28 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Alexander Nyberg wrote: >>I'm running a 2.6.11 kernel. I have 1 gig of RAM and 1 gig of swap. Lately >>when my RAM gets full, the oom-killer takes out either Mozilla or >>Thunderbird (my two biggest memory hogs), even though my swap space is only >>20% full. I still have ~800 MB of free swap space, so shouldn't the kernel >>push Moz or T-bird into swap instead of oom-killing it? At their maximum >>memory-hogging capacity, neither Moz nor T-bird is ever using more than 200 MB. >> >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x80d2 >>... >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Free swap = 781012kB >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Total swap = 987988kB >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 30787 (thunderbird-bin). >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18112 (thunderbird-bin). >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18116 (thunderbird-bin). >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18117 (thunderbird-bin). >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 18119 (thunderbird-bin). >>Jun 28 12:09:09 soma Out of Memory: Killed process 8857 (thunderbird-bin). >> > > You cut out the important part where it printed out memory usage > information at the time of the OOM, please post it > Oops. I left that out because it line-wrapped so bad, and I didn't realize it was important. Here it is: ... oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x80d2 ... DMA per-cpu: ... cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 ... Normal per-cpu: ... cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 ... HighMem per-cpu: ... cpu 0 hot: low 14, high 42, batch 7 ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 14, batch 7 ... ... Free pages: 12536kB (112kB HighMem) ... Active:240797 inactive:2399 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:3134 slab:7144 mapped:240597 pagetables:1073 ... DMA free:4096kB min:68kB low:84kB high:100kB active:8260kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:9052 all_unreclaimable? yes ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 880 1007 ... Normal free:8328kB min:3756kB low:4692kB high:5632kB active:827084kB inactive:9468kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:23361 all_unreclaimable? no ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 1023 ... HighMem free:112kB min:128kB low:160kB high:192kB active:127844kB inactive:128kB present:131008kB pages_scanned:135459 all_unreclaimable? yes ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 ... DMA: 0*4kB 28*8kB 16*16kB 1*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 4096kB ... Normal: 98*4kB 16*8kB 216*16kB 18*32kB 1*64kB 1*128kB 0*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 8328kB ... HighMem: 0*4kB 2*8kB 2*16kB 0*32kB 1*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 112kB ... Swap cache: add 166973, delete 149202, find 1714386/1723885, race 0+0 ... Free swap = 781012kB ... Total swap = 987988kB ... Out of Memory: Killed process 30787 (thunderbird-bin). ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18112 (thunderbird-bin). ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18116 (thunderbird-bin). ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18117 (thunderbird-bin). ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18119 (thunderbird-bin). ... Out of Memory: Killed process 8857 (thunderbird-bin). -Anthony DiSante http://nodivisions.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! 2005-06-28 16:52 ` Anthony DiSante @ 2005-06-29 12:57 ` Alexander Nyberg 2005-07-03 20:53 ` Marcelo Tosatti 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Alexander Nyberg @ 2005-06-29 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anthony DiSante; +Cc: andrea, akpm, linux-kernel > >>I'm running a 2.6.11 kernel. I have 1 gig of RAM and 1 gig of swap. Lately > >>when my RAM gets full, the oom-killer takes out either Mozilla or > >>Thunderbird (my two biggest memory hogs), even though my swap space is only > >>20% full. I still have ~800 MB of free swap space, so shouldn't the kernel > >>push Moz or T-bird into swap instead of oom-killing it? At their maximum > >>memory-hogging capacity, neither Moz nor T-bird is ever using more than 200 MB. > >> > > You cut out the important part where it printed out memory usage > > information at the time of the OOM, please post it > > > > Oops. I left that out because it line-wrapped so bad, and I didn't realize > it was important. Here it is: > > ... oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x80d2 > ... DMA per-cpu: > ... cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 > ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 > ... Normal per-cpu: > ... cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > ... HighMem per-cpu: > ... cpu 0 hot: low 14, high 42, batch 7 > ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 14, batch 7 > ... > ... Free pages: 12536kB (112kB HighMem) > ... Active:240797 inactive:2399 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:3134 > slab:7144 mapped:240597 pagetables:1073 > ... DMA free:4096kB min:68kB low:84kB high:100kB active:8260kB inactive:0kB > present:16384kB pages_scanned:9052 all_unreclaimable? yes > ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 880 1007 > ... Normal free:8328kB min:3756kB low:4692kB high:5632kB active:827084kB > inactive:9468kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:23361 all_unreclaimable? no > ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 1023 > ... HighMem free:112kB min:128kB low:160kB high:192kB active:127844kB > inactive:128kB present:131008kB pages_scanned:135459 all_unreclaimable? yes > ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 > ... DMA: 0*4kB 28*8kB 16*16kB 1*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB > 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 4096kB > ... Normal: 98*4kB 16*8kB 216*16kB 18*32kB 1*64kB 1*128kB 0*256kB 1*512kB > 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 8328kB > ... HighMem: 0*4kB 2*8kB 2*16kB 0*32kB 1*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB > 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 112kB > ... Swap cache: add 166973, delete 149202, find 1714386/1723885, race 0+0 > ... Free swap = 781012kB > ... Total swap = 987988kB > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 30787 (thunderbird-bin). > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18112 (thunderbird-bin). > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18116 (thunderbird-bin). > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18117 (thunderbird-bin). > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18119 (thunderbird-bin). > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 8857 (thunderbird-bin). Yeah this indeed looks strange. gfp_mask == GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO iirc Andrea fixing up some all_unreclaimable bug in 2.6.11 but this looks like that for some reason it didn't go into the Normal zone which has plenty of free pages... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! 2005-06-29 12:57 ` Alexander Nyberg @ 2005-07-03 20:53 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2005-07-04 2:44 ` Roy Keene 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2005-07-03 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Nyberg; +Cc: Anthony DiSante, andrea, akpm, linux-kernel On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 02:57:15PM +0200, Alexander Nyberg wrote: > > >>I'm running a 2.6.11 kernel. I have 1 gig of RAM and 1 gig of swap. Lately > > >>when my RAM gets full, the oom-killer takes out either Mozilla or > > >>Thunderbird (my two biggest memory hogs), even though my swap space is only > > >>20% full. I still have ~800 MB of free swap space, so shouldn't the kernel > > >>push Moz or T-bird into swap instead of oom-killing it? At their maximum > > >>memory-hogging capacity, neither Moz nor T-bird is ever using more than 200 MB. > > >> > > > You cut out the important part where it printed out memory usage > > > information at the time of the OOM, please post it > > > > > > > Oops. I left that out because it line-wrapped so bad, and I didn't realize > > it was important. Here it is: > > > > ... oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x80d2 > > ... DMA per-cpu: > > ... cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 > > ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 > > ... Normal per-cpu: > > ... cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > > ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > > ... HighMem per-cpu: > > ... cpu 0 hot: low 14, high 42, batch 7 > > ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 14, batch 7 > > ... > > ... Free pages: 12536kB (112kB HighMem) > > ... Active:240797 inactive:2399 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:3134 > > slab:7144 mapped:240597 pagetables:1073 > > ... DMA free:4096kB min:68kB low:84kB high:100kB active:8260kB inactive:0kB > > present:16384kB pages_scanned:9052 all_unreclaimable? yes > > ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 880 1007 > > ... Normal free:8328kB min:3756kB low:4692kB high:5632kB active:827084kB > > inactive:9468kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:23361 all_unreclaimable? no > > ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 1023 > > ... HighMem free:112kB min:128kB low:160kB high:192kB active:127844kB > > inactive:128kB present:131008kB pages_scanned:135459 all_unreclaimable? yes > > ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 > > ... DMA: 0*4kB 28*8kB 16*16kB 1*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB > > 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 4096kB > > ... Normal: 98*4kB 16*8kB 216*16kB 18*32kB 1*64kB 1*128kB 0*256kB 1*512kB > > 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 8328kB > > ... HighMem: 0*4kB 2*8kB 2*16kB 0*32kB 1*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB > > 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 112kB > > ... Swap cache: add 166973, delete 149202, find 1714386/1723885, race 0+0 > > ... Free swap = 781012kB > > ... Total swap = 987988kB > > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 30787 (thunderbird-bin). > > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18112 (thunderbird-bin). > > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18116 (thunderbird-bin). > > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18117 (thunderbird-bin). > > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18119 (thunderbird-bin). > > ... Out of Memory: Killed process 8857 (thunderbird-bin). > > Yeah this indeed looks strange. gfp_mask == GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO > > iirc Andrea fixing up some all_unreclaimable bug in 2.6.11 but this > looks like that for some reason it didn't go into the Normal zone which > has plenty of free pages... Anthony, are you certain that this was the only VM dump available? AFAICS the only possible explanation for a OOM kill manifestation under this conditions (free pages count in the normal zone is higher than its high watermark + lowmem reservation), is a higher order allocation. Why the heck doesnt the OOM killer print the order of current allocation? Anyway, the current try_to_free_pages/alloc_pages interaction seem to continue susceptible to deliberate decisions, even after Nick changed the algorithm to return success if the total count of reclaimed pages is greater than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, instead of a single priority pass being greater than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX. It sounds to me that a more reliable indication of OOM is failure to free _any_ pages after a full priority decay. Nick, Andrew? --- linux-2.6.11/mm/vmscan.c.orig 2005-07-03 11:02:15.000000000 -0300 +++ linux-2.6.11/mm/vmscan.c 2005-07-03 11:02:44.000000000 -0300 @@ -938,6 +938,8 @@ if (sc.nr_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) blk_congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10); } + /* return failure only if zero pages have been reclaimed */ + ret = !!total_reclaimed; out: for (i = 0; zones[i] != 0; i++) zones[i]->prev_priority = zones[i]->temp_priority; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! 2005-07-03 20:53 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2005-07-04 2:44 ` Roy Keene 2005-07-03 22:45 ` Marcelo Tosatti 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Roy Keene @ 2005-07-04 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Alexander Nyberg, Anthony DiSante, andrea, akpm, linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 5005 bytes --] I think I'm having the same issue. I've 2 systems with 4GB of RAM and 2GB of swap that kill processes when they get a lot of disk I/O. I've attached the full dmesg output which includes portions where it killed stuff despite having massive amounts of free memory. Roy Keene Planning Systems Inc. On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 02:57:15PM +0200, Alexander Nyberg wrote: >>>>> I'm running a 2.6.11 kernel. I have 1 gig of RAM and 1 gig of swap. Lately >>>>> when my RAM gets full, the oom-killer takes out either Mozilla or >>>>> Thunderbird (my two biggest memory hogs), even though my swap space is only >>>>> 20% full. I still have ~800 MB of free swap space, so shouldn't the kernel >>>>> push Moz or T-bird into swap instead of oom-killing it? At their maximum >>>>> memory-hogging capacity, neither Moz nor T-bird is ever using more than 200 MB. >>>>> >>>> You cut out the important part where it printed out memory usage >>>> information at the time of the OOM, please post it >>>> >>> >>> Oops. I left that out because it line-wrapped so bad, and I didn't realize >>> it was important. Here it is: >>> >>> ... oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x80d2 >>> ... DMA per-cpu: >>> ... cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 >>> ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 >>> ... Normal per-cpu: >>> ... cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >>> ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >>> ... HighMem per-cpu: >>> ... cpu 0 hot: low 14, high 42, batch 7 >>> ... cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 14, batch 7 >>> ... >>> ... Free pages: 12536kB (112kB HighMem) >>> ... Active:240797 inactive:2399 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:3134 >>> slab:7144 mapped:240597 pagetables:1073 >>> ... DMA free:4096kB min:68kB low:84kB high:100kB active:8260kB inactive:0kB >>> present:16384kB pages_scanned:9052 all_unreclaimable? yes >>> ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 880 1007 >>> ... Normal free:8328kB min:3756kB low:4692kB high:5632kB active:827084kB >>> inactive:9468kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:23361 all_unreclaimable? no >>> ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 1023 >>> ... HighMem free:112kB min:128kB low:160kB high:192kB active:127844kB >>> inactive:128kB present:131008kB pages_scanned:135459 all_unreclaimable? yes >>> ... lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 >>> ... DMA: 0*4kB 28*8kB 16*16kB 1*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB >>> 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 4096kB >>> ... Normal: 98*4kB 16*8kB 216*16kB 18*32kB 1*64kB 1*128kB 0*256kB 1*512kB >>> 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 0*4096kB = 8328kB >>> ... HighMem: 0*4kB 2*8kB 2*16kB 0*32kB 1*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB >>> 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 112kB >>> ... Swap cache: add 166973, delete 149202, find 1714386/1723885, race 0+0 >>> ... Free swap = 781012kB >>> ... Total swap = 987988kB >>> ... Out of Memory: Killed process 30787 (thunderbird-bin). >>> ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18112 (thunderbird-bin). >>> ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18116 (thunderbird-bin). >>> ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18117 (thunderbird-bin). >>> ... Out of Memory: Killed process 18119 (thunderbird-bin). >>> ... Out of Memory: Killed process 8857 (thunderbird-bin). >> >> Yeah this indeed looks strange. gfp_mask == GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_ZERO >> >> iirc Andrea fixing up some all_unreclaimable bug in 2.6.11 but this >> looks like that for some reason it didn't go into the Normal zone which >> has plenty of free pages... > > Anthony, are you certain that this was the only VM dump available? > > AFAICS the only possible explanation for a OOM kill manifestation under > this conditions (free pages count in the normal zone is higher than > its high watermark + lowmem reservation), is a higher order allocation. > > Why the heck doesnt the OOM killer print the order of current allocation? > > Anyway, the current try_to_free_pages/alloc_pages interaction seem to > continue susceptible to deliberate decisions, even after Nick changed > the algorithm to return success if the total count of reclaimed pages > is greater than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, instead of a single priority pass > being greater than SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX. > > It sounds to me that a more reliable indication of OOM is failure to > free _any_ pages after a full priority decay. > > Nick, Andrew? > > --- linux-2.6.11/mm/vmscan.c.orig 2005-07-03 11:02:15.000000000 -0300 > +++ linux-2.6.11/mm/vmscan.c 2005-07-03 11:02:44.000000000 -0300 > @@ -938,6 +938,8 @@ > if (sc.nr_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) > blk_congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10); > } > + /* return failure only if zero pages have been reclaimed */ > + ret = !!total_reclaimed; > out: > for (i = 0; zones[i] != 0; i++) > zones[i]->prev_priority = zones[i]->temp_priority; > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > [-- Attachment #2: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 15719 bytes --] Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 7.00alpha2 ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with idebus=xx ICH5: IDE controller at PCI slot 0000:00:1f.1 ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:00:1f.1[A] -> GSI 18 (level, low) -> IRQ 185 ICH5: chipset revision 2 ICH5: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later ide0: BM-DMA at 0xfc00-0xfc07, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:pio Probing IDE interface ide0... hda: LITE-ON DVDRW SOHW-1633S, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive Using cfq io scheduler ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14 Probing IDE interface ide1... Probing IDE interface ide2... Probing IDE interface ide3... Probing IDE interface ide4... Probing IDE interface ide5... hda: ATAPI 48X DVD-ROM DVD-R CD-R/RW drive, 2048kB Cache, UDMA(33) Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.20 ide-floppy driver 0.99.newide usbcore: registered new driver hiddev usbcore: registered new driver usbhid drivers/usb/input/hid-core.c: v2.0:USB HID core driver mice: PS/2 mouse device common for all mice input: AT Translated Set 2 keyboard on isa0060/serio0 input: ImPS/2 Generic Wheel Mouse on isa0060/serio1 md: md driver 0.90.0 MAX_MD_DEVS=256, MD_SB_DISKS=27 NET: Registered protocol family 2 IP: routing cache hash table of 32768 buckets, 512Kbytes TCP: Hash tables configured (established 262144 bind 43690) Initializing IPsec netlink socket NET: Registered protocol family 1 NET: Registered protocol family 17 ACPI: (supports S0 S1 S4 S5) ACPI wakeup devices: PXHA PXHB EPB0 EPC0 DBSA DBSB P0P1 USB1 USB2 USB3 EUSB UAR1 UAR2 PS2K PS2M Freeing unused kernel memory: 176k freed SCSI subsystem initialized megaraid cmm: 2.20.2.5 (Release Date: Fri Jan 21 00:01:03 EST 2005) megaraid: 2.20.4.5 (Release Date: Thu Feb 03 12:27:22 EST 2005) megaraid: probe new device 0x1000:0x0408:0x8086:0x3431: bus 4:slot 14:func 0 ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:04:0e.0[A] -> GSI 86 (level, low) -> IRQ 225 megaraid: fw version:[514E] bios version:[H420] scsi0 : LSI Logic MegaRAID driver scsi[0]: scanning scsi channel 0 [Phy 0] for non-raid devices Vendor: SEAGATE Model: DAT DAT72-000 Rev: A060 Type: Sequential-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03 scsi[0]: scanning scsi channel 1 [Phy 1] for non-raid devices Vendor: ESG-SHV Model: SCA HSBP M27 Rev: 1.0B Type: Processor ANSI SCSI revision: 02 scsi[0]: scanning scsi channel 2 [virtual] for logical drives Vendor: MegaRAID Model: LD 0 RAID5 139G Rev: 514E Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02 SCSI device sda: 285155328 512-byte hdwr sectors (146000 MB) sda: asking for cache data failed sda: assuming drive cache: write through sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 Attached scsi disk sda at scsi0, channel 2, id 0, lun 0 EXT3-fs: INFO: recovery required on readonly filesystem. EXT3-fs: write access will be enabled during recovery. kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds EXT3-fs: recovery complete. EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. SELinux: Disabled at runtime. SELinux: Unregistering netfilter hooks st: Version 20040403, fixed bufsize 32768, s/g segs 256 Attached scsi tape st0 at scsi0, channel 0, id 6, lun 0 st0: try direct i/o: yes (alignment 512 B), max page reachable by HBA 4294967295 Attached scsi generic sg0 at scsi0, channel 0, id 6, lun 0, type 1 Attached scsi generic sg1 at scsi0, channel 1, id 6, lun 0, type 3 Attached scsi generic sg2 at scsi0, channel 2, id 0, lun 0, type 0 inserting floppy driver for 2.6.9-11.ELsmp Floppy drive(s): fd0 is 1.44M FDC 0 is a National Semiconductor PC87306 Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 5.6.10.1-k2-NAPI Copyright (c) 1999-2004 Intel Corporation. ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:08:04.0[A] -> GSI 52 (level, low) -> IRQ 209 divert: allocating divert_blk for eth0 e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:08:04.1[B] -> GSI 53 (level, low) -> IRQ 217 divert: allocating divert_blk for eth1 e1000: eth1: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection hw_random hardware driver 1.0.0 loaded ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:00:1d.7[D] -> GSI 23 (level, low) -> IRQ 193 ehci_hcd 0000:00:1d.7: EHCI Host Controller PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:00:1d.7 to 64 ehci_hcd 0000:00:1d.7: irq 193, pci mem f88aac00 ehci_hcd 0000:00:1d.7: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1 PCI: cache line size of 128 is not supported by device 0000:00:1d.7 ehci_hcd 0000:00:1d.7: USB 2.0 enabled, EHCI 1.00, driver 2004-May-10 hub 1-0:1.0: USB hub found hub 1-0:1.0: 6 ports detected USB Universal Host Controller Interface driver v2.2 ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:00:1d.0[A] -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 169 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.0: UHCI Host Controller PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:00:1d.0 to 64 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.0: irq 169, io base 0000bc00 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.0: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 2 hub 2-0:1.0: USB hub found hub 2-0:1.0: 2 ports detected ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:00:1d.1[B] -> GSI 19 (level, low) -> IRQ 177 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.1: UHCI Host Controller PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:00:1d.1 to 64 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.1: irq 177, io base 0000c000 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.1: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 3 hub 3-0:1.0: USB hub found hub 3-0:1.0: 2 ports detected ACPI: PCI interrupt 0000:00:1d.2[C] -> GSI 18 (level, low) -> IRQ 185 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.2: UHCI Host Controller PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:00:1d.2 to 64 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.2: irq 185, io base 0000c080 uhci_hcd 0000:00:1d.2: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 4 hub 4-0:1.0: USB hub found hub 4-0:1.0: 2 ports detected md: Autodetecting RAID arrays. md: autorun ... md: ... autorun DONE. ip_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team usb 3-1: new low speed USB device using address 2 e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 10 Mbps Half Duplex e1000: eth1: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex ip_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team hiddev96: USB HID v1.10 Device [American Power Conversion Smart-UPS 1000 XL FW:631.3.D USB FW:1] on usb-0000:00:1d.1-1 ACPI: Power Button (FF) [PWRF] EXT3 FS on sda3, internal journal device-mapper: 4.4.0-ioctl (2005-01-12) initialised: dm@uk.sistina.com cdrom: open failed. Adding 2096472k swap on /dev/sda2. Priority:-1 extents:1 ip_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team ip_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team ip_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team ip_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team nbd: registered device at major 43 Software Watchdog Timer: 0.07 initialized. soft_noboot=0 soft_margin=60 sec (nowayout= 1) i2c /dev entries driver NET: Registered protocol family 10 Disabled Privacy Extensions on device c03356c0(lo) IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling driver divert: not allocating divert_blk for non-ethernet device sit0 ip_tables: (C) 2000-2002 Netfilter core team eth1: no IPv6 routers present eth0: no IPv6 routers present md: md0 stopped. oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0 Mem-info: DMA per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 2 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 3 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 Normal per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 HighMem per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 Free pages: 14304kB (1664kB HighMem) Active:7971 inactive:994335 dirty:327523 writeback:25721 unstable:0 free:3576 slab:29113 mapped:7996 pagetables:341 DMA free:12640kB min:16kB low:32kB high:48kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:877 all_unreclaimable? yes protections[]: 0 0 0 Normal free:0kB min:928kB low:1856kB high:2784kB active:0kB inactive:739100kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:1556742 all_unreclaimable? yes protections[]: 0 0 0 HighMem free:1664kB min:512kB low:1024kB high:1536kB active:31804kB inactive:3238320kB present:3801088kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no protections[]: 0 0 0 DMA: 4*4kB 4*8kB 3*16kB 4*32kB 4*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 2*4096kB = 12640kB Normal: 0*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 0kB HighMem: 12*4kB 8*8kB 7*16kB 3*32kB 1*64kB 2*128kB 0*256kB 2*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 1664kB Swap cache: add 116, delete 17, find 0/0, race 0+0 Free swap: 2096008kB 1179648 pages of RAM 819168 pages of HIGHMEM 141773 reserved pages 1004523 pages shared 99 pages swap cached Out of Memory: Killed process 3819 (named). oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0 Mem-info: DMA per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 2 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 3 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 Normal per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 HighMem per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 Free pages: 15264kB (2496kB HighMem) Active:7690 inactive:994342 dirty:324822 writeback:28377 unstable:0 free:3816 slab:29090 mapped:7420 pagetables:324 DMA free:12640kB min:16kB low:32kB high:48kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:878 all_unreclaimable? yes protections[]: 0 0 0 Normal free:128kB min:928kB low:1856kB high:2784kB active:0kB inactive:738920kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:1215654 all_unreclaimable? yes protections[]: 0 0 0 HighMem free:2496kB min:512kB low:1024kB high:1536kB active:30760kB inactive:3238320kB present:3801088kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no protections[]: 0 0 0 DMA: 4*4kB 4*8kB 3*16kB 4*32kB 4*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 2*4096kB = 12640kB Normal: 6*4kB 5*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 64kB HighMem: 98*4kB 29*8kB 19*16kB 7*32kB 1*64kB 2*128kB 0*256kB 2*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2496kB Swap cache: add 116, delete 17, find 0/0, race 0+0 Free swap: 2096076kB 1179648 pages of RAM 819168 pages of HIGHMEM 141773 reserved pages 1003921 pages shared 99 pages swap cached Out of Memory: Killed process 6211 (sendmail). oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0 Mem-info: DMA per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 2 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 3 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 Normal per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 HighMem per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 Free pages: 15968kB (3328kB HighMem) Active:7489 inactive:994310 dirty:324570 writeback:28629 unstable:0 free:3992 slab:29006 mapped:7219 pagetables:313 DMA free:12640kB min:16kB low:32kB high:48kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:878 all_unreclaimable? yes protections[]: 0 0 0 Normal free:0kB min:928kB low:1856kB high:2784kB active:0kB inactive:738920kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:2083917 all_unreclaimable? yes protections[]: 0 0 0 HighMem free:3328kB min:512kB low:1024kB high:1536kB active:29956kB inactive:3238320kB present:3801088kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no protections[]: 0 0 0 DMA: 4*4kB 4*8kB 3*16kB 4*32kB 4*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 2*4096kB = 12640kB Normal: 0*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 0kB HighMem: 230*4kB 49*8kB 26*16kB 8*32kB 1*64kB 2*128kB 0*256kB 2*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 3328kB Swap cache: add 116, delete 17, find 0/0, race 0+0 Free swap: 2096076kB 1179648 pages of RAM 819168 pages of HIGHMEM 141773 reserved pages 1003481 pages shared 99 pages swap cached Out of Memory: Killed process 3956 (ntpd). oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0 Mem-info: DMA per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 2 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 cpu 3 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 Normal per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 HighMem per-cpu: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 Free pages: 16608kB (3328kB HighMem) Active:7530 inactive:994287 dirty:324242 writeback:28941 unstable:0 free:4152 slab:28823 mapped:7219 pagetables:313 DMA free:12640kB min:16kB low:32kB high:48kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:879 all_unreclaimable? yes protections[]: 0 0 0 Normal free:704kB min:928kB low:1856kB high:2784kB active:8kB inactive:738980kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:7590 all_unreclaimable? no protections[]: 0 0 0 HighMem free:3328kB min:512kB low:1024kB high:1536kB active:29960kB inactive:3238320kB present:3801088kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no protections[]: 0 0 0 DMA: 4*4kB 4*8kB 3*16kB 4*32kB 4*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 1*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 2*4096kB = 12640kB Normal: 74*4kB 23*8kB 14*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 704kB HighMem: 230*4kB 49*8kB 26*16kB 8*32kB 1*64kB 2*128kB 0*256kB 2*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 3328kB Swap cache: add 116, delete 17, find 0/0, race 0+0 Free swap: 2096076kB 1179648 pages of RAM 819168 pages of HIGHMEM 141773 reserved pages 1003435 pages shared 99 pages swap cached Out of Memory: Killed process 4686 (ipfail). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! 2005-07-04 2:44 ` Roy Keene @ 2005-07-03 22:45 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2005-07-04 3:52 ` Roy Keene 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2005-07-03 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roy Keene; +Cc: Alexander Nyberg, Anthony DiSante, andrea, akpm, linux-kernel Hi Roy, On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:44:37PM -0500, Roy Keene wrote: > I think I'm having the same issue. > > I've 2 systems with 4GB of RAM and 2GB of swap that kill processes when > they get a lot of disk I/O. I've attached the full dmesg output which > includes portions where it killed stuff despite having massive amounts of > free memory. What kernel version is that? > oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0 > Mem-info: > DMA per-cpu: > cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 > cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 > cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 > cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 > cpu 2 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 > cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 > cpu 3 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 > cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 > Normal per-cpu: > cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > HighMem per-cpu: > cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > > Free pages: 14304kB (1664kB HighMem) > Active:7971 inactive:994335 dirty:327523 writeback:25721 unstable:0 free:3576 slab:29113 mapped:7996 pagetables:341 There are about 100M of writeout data onflight - I suppose thats too much. Guess: can you switch to another IO scheduler than CFQ or reduce its queue size? IIRC you can do that by reducing /sys/block/device/queue/nr_requests. > DMA free:12640kB min:16kB low:32kB high:48kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:877 all_unreclaimable? yes > protections[]: 0 0 0 > > Normal free:0kB min:928kB low:1856kB high:2784kB active:0kB inactive:739100kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:1556742 all_unreclaimable? yes > protections[]: 0 0 0 You've got no reservations for the normal zone either. How does /proc/sys/vm/lowmem_reserve_ratio looks like? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! 2005-07-03 22:45 ` Marcelo Tosatti @ 2005-07-04 3:52 ` Roy Keene 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Roy Keene @ 2005-07-04 3:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Alexander Nyberg, Anthony DiSante, andrea, akpm, linux-kernel Howdy, Roy Keene Planning Systems Inc. On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Hi Roy, > > On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 09:44:37PM -0500, Roy Keene wrote: >> I think I'm having the same issue. >> >> I've 2 systems with 4GB of RAM and 2GB of swap that kill processes when >> they get a lot of disk I/O. I've attached the full dmesg output which >> includes portions where it killed stuff despite having massive amounts of >> free memory. > > What kernel version is that? > Linux cog2 2.6.9-11.ELsmp #1 SMP Fri May 20 18:26:27 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux >> oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0 >> Mem-info: >> DMA per-cpu: >> cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 >> cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 >> cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 >> cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 >> cpu 2 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 >> cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 >> cpu 3 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 >> cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 >> Normal per-cpu: >> cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >> cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >> cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >> cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >> cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >> cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >> cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >> cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >> HighMem per-cpu: >> cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >> cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >> cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >> cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >> cpu 2 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >> cpu 2 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >> cpu 3 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 >> cpu 3 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 >> >> Free pages: 14304kB (1664kB HighMem) >> Active:7971 inactive:994335 dirty:327523 writeback:25721 unstable:0 free:3576 slab:29113 mapped:7996 pagetables:341 > > There are about 100M of writeout data onflight - I suppose thats too much. > > Guess: can you switch to another IO scheduler than CFQ or reduce its queue size? > > IIRC you can do that by reducing /sys/block/device/queue/nr_requests. > For all the devices I use this is set to 8192 I set "sda" to 512 now. [root@cog2 ~]# cat /sys/block/{sda,nbd0,nbd1}/queue/nr_requests 8192 8192 8192 >> DMA free:12640kB min:16kB low:32kB high:48kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:877 all_unreclaimable? yes >> protections[]: 0 0 0 >> >> Normal free:0kB min:928kB low:1856kB high:2784kB active:0kB inactive:739100kB present:901120kB pages_scanned:1556742 all_unreclaimable? yes >> protections[]: 0 0 0 > > You've got no reservations for the normal zone either. > > How does /proc/sys/vm/lowmem_reserve_ratio looks like? > > It looks like it doesn't exist.. [root@cog2 ~]# ls /proc/sys/vm block_dump dirty_ratio laptop_mode max_map_count nr_pdflush_threads page-cluster dirty_background_ratio dirty_writeback_centisecs legacy_va_layout min_free_kbytes overcommit_memory swappiness dirty_expire_centisecs hugetlb_shm_group lower_zone_protection nr_hugepages overcommit_ratio vfs_cache_pressure [root@cog2 ~]# ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-07-04 3:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-06-28 16:24 oom-killings, but I'm not out of memory! Anthony DiSante 2005-06-28 16:44 ` Alexander Nyberg 2005-06-28 16:52 ` Anthony DiSante 2005-06-29 12:57 ` Alexander Nyberg 2005-07-03 20:53 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2005-07-04 2:44 ` Roy Keene 2005-07-03 22:45 ` Marcelo Tosatti 2005-07-04 3:52 ` Roy Keene
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox