Re: abnormal OOM killer message

[Minchan Kim]

Thanks for good comment, Mel. 

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:36:11 +0100
Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:49:58PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:24:54 +0900
> > ????????? <chungki.woo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Thank you very much for replys.
> > > 
> > > But I think it seems not to relate with stale data problem in compcache.
> > > My question was why last chance to allocate memory was failed.
> > > When OOM killer is executed, memory state is not a condition to
> > > execute OOM killer.
> > > Specially, there are so many pages of order 0. And allocating order is zero.
> > > I think that last allocating memory should have succeeded.
> > > That's my worry.
> > 
> > Yes. I agree with you.
> > Mel. Could you give some comment in this situation ?
> > Is it possible that order 0 allocation is failed 
> > even there are many pages in buddy ?
> > 
> 
> Not ordinarily. If it happens, I tend to suspect that the free list data
> is corrupted and would put a check in __rmqueue() that looked like
> 
> 	BUG_ON(list_empty(&area->free_list) && area->nr_free);

If memory is corrupt, it would be not satisfied with both condition. 
It would be better to ORed condition.

BUG_ON(list_empty(&area->free_list) || area->nr_free);

> The second question is, why are we in direct reclaim this far above the
> watermark? It should only be kswapd that is doing any reclaim at that
> point. That makes me wonder again are the free lists corrupted.

It does make sense!

> The other possibility is that the zonelist used for allocation in the
> troubled path contains no populated zones. I would put a BUG_ON check in
> get_page_from_freelist() to check if the first zone in the zonelist has no
> pages. If that bug triggers, it might explain why OOMs are triggering for
> no good reason.

Yes. Chungki. Could you put the both BUG_ON in each function and
try to reproduce the problem ?

> I consider both of those possibilities abnormal though.
> 
> > > 
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >       page = get_page_from_freelist(gfp_mask|__GFP_HARDWALL, order,
> > > <== this is last chance
> > >                            zonelist, ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH|ALLOC_CPUSET);
> > > <== uses ALLOC_WMARK_HIGH
> > >       if (page)
> > >       goto got_pg;
> > > 
> > >       out_of_memory(zonelist, gfp_mask, order);
> > >       goto restart;
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > > Let me have a question.
> > > > Now the system has 79M as total swap.
> > > > It's bigger than system memory size.
> > > > Is it possible in compcache?
> > > > Can we believe the number?
> > > 
> > > Yeah, It's possible. 79Mbyte is data size can be swap.
> > > It's not compressed data size. It's just original data size.
> > 
> > You means your pages with 79M are swap out in compcache's reserved
> > memory?
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mel Gorman
> Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
> University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/