Re: Found the commit that causes the OOMs

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

>> In David's OOM case, there are two symptoms:
>> 1) 70000 unaccounted/leaked pages as found by Andrew
>>   (plus rather big number of PG_buddy and pagetable pages)
>> 2) almost zero active_file/inactive_file; small inactive_anon;
>>   many slab and active_anon pages.
>>
>> In the situation of (2), the slab cache is _under_ scanned. So David
>> got OOM when vmscan should have squeezed some free pages from the slab
>> cache. Which is one important side effect of MinChan's patch?
>
> My patch's side effect is (2).
>
> My guessing is following as.
>
> 1. The number of page scanned in shrink_slab is increased in shrink_page_list.
> And it is doubled for mapped page or swapcache.
> 2. shrink_page_list is called by shrink_inactive_list
> 3. shrink_inactive_list is called by shrink_list
>
> Look at the shrink_list.
> If inactive lru list is low, it always call shrink_active_list not
> shrink_inactive_list in case of anon.
> It means it doesn't increased sc->nr_scanned.
> Then shrink_slab can't shrink enough slab pages.
> So, David OOM have a lot of slab pages and active anon pages.
>
> Does it make sense ?
> If it make sense, we have to change shrink_slab's pressure method.
> What do you think ?

I'm confused.

if system have no swap, get_scan_ratio() always return anon=0%.
Then, the numver of inactive_anon is not effect to sc.nr_scanned.