Re: oom with 2.6.11

[Mauricio Lin <mauriciolin@gmail.com>]

Hi Christian,

I would like to know what are the kernel versions this problem happened.

Did this problem start from 2.6.11-rc2-bk10?

BR,

Mauricio Lin.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:12:27 +0100, Christian Kujau <evil@g-house.de> wrote:
> ok,
> 
> as "promised", it the OOM happened again with the same plain 2.6.11,
> details here.
> 
> http://nerdbynature.de/bits/sheep/2.6.11/oom/oom_2.6.11_2.txt
> 
> the following is a quite long, but please read on
> (if anyone is reading at all :))
> 
> this time it happened at 08:01, and i could image some heavy cron jobs
> were going on. but as i said: "it did not happen before". there are also
> output of SYSRQ-T/M/P. i did SYSRQ-E to recover the machine, but then
> decided to reboot back to 2.6.11-rc5-bk2.
> 
> i had a look at the changelogs too and noticed that ChangeLog-2.6.11
> contains 7 occurrences of "OOM" in the patch desctiption:
> 
> [PATCH] mm: overcommit updates, 2005-01-03
> [PATCH] vmscan: count writeback pages in nr_scanned, 2005-01-08
> [PATCH] possible rq starvation on oom, 2005-01-13
> [PATCH] mm: adjust dirty threshold for lowmem-only mappings, 2005-01-25
> [PATCH] mm: oom-killer tunable, 2005-02-02
> [PATCH] mm: fix several oom killer bugs, 2005-02-02
> [PATCH] Fix oops in alloc_zeroed_user_highpage() when [...],2005-02-09
> 
> release dates:
> 2.6.11-rc5-bk1  26-Feb-2005
> 2.6.11-rc5-bk2  27-Feb-2005  <
> 2.6.11-rc5-bk3  28-Feb-2005
> 2.6.11-rc5-bk4  01-Mar-2005
> 2.6.11          02-Mar-2005
> 
> so i really don't see any patches that *could* have something to do with
> the issue here.
> 
> now comes the weird part:
> 
> i was going to compile 2.6.11-rc5-bk4, to sort out the "bad" kernel.
> compiling went fine. ok, finished some email, ok, suddenly my swap was
> used up again, and no memory left - uh oh! OOM again, with 2.6.11-rc5-bk2!
> 
> to summarize it:
> i've run 2.6.11-rc2-bk10 during whole february, then switched to
> 2.6.11-rc5-bk2 on 28.02.2005, then to 2.6.11 on 05.03.2005 - and only
> noticed with 2.6.11 first, now with 2.6.11-rc5-bk2 too.
> 
> there is an interesting part in the logfiles:
> 
> http://nerdbynature.de/bits/sheep/2.6.11/oom/oom_2.6.11.txt
> http://nerdbynature.de/bits/sheep/2.6.11/oom/oom_2.6.11_2.txt
> http://nerdbynature.de/bits/sheep/2.6.11/oom/oom_2.6.11-rc5-bk2.txt
> 
> every last message before the "OOM" messages is something with pppd:
> 
> Mar 10 13:45:55 sheep pppd[1567]: Starting link
> Mar 10 14:12:29 sheep kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x1d2
> 
> Mar  8 00:59:58 sheep pppd[418]: Starting link
> Mar  8 01:27:33 sheep kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0
> 
> Mar  9 07:33:49 sheep pppd[30937]: Starting link
> Mar  9 08:01:35 sheep kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x1d2
> 
> and 30min later OOM kicks in. normally, pppd (pppoe) gives messages like this:
> 
> Mar 10 14:23:38 sheep pppd[26365]: Starting link
> Mar 10 14:23:38 sheep pppd[26365]: Serial connection established.
> Mar 10 14:23:38 sheep pppd[26365]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/0
> Mar 10 14:23:38 sheep pppoe[26383]: PADS: Service-Name: ''
> Mar 10 14:23:38 sheep pppoe[26383]: PPP session is 6804
> Mar 10 14:23:39 sheep pppd[26365]: CHAP authentication succeeded
> Mar 10 14:23:40 sheep pppd[26365]: Local IP address changed to
> [...]
> 
> is this strange? or not?
> 
> i hope someone has a hint for me, because "going back to the stable
> kernel" would mean "being bound to 2.6.11-rc2-bk10" :(
> 
> thank you for any hints,
> Christian.
> 
> PS: Steven, i've cc'ed you because you have trouble with new 2.6.11
> kernels and pppd too. maybe unrelated, maybe not.
> --
> BOFH excuse #185:
> 
> system consumed all the paper for paging
>