Re: Possible deadloop in direct reclaim?

[Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Lisa Du wrote:

> Currently I met a possible deadloop in direct reclaim. After run plenty of the application, system run into a status that system memory is very fragmentized. Like only order-0 and order-1 memory left.

Can you verify that by doing a

 cat /proc/buddyinfo

?

> Then one process required a order-2 buffer but it enter an endless
> direct reclaim. From my trace log, I can see this loop already over
> 200,000 times. Kswapd was first wake up and then go back to sleep as it
> cannot rebalance this order's memory. But zone->all_unreclaimable
> remains 1. Though direct_reclaim every time returns no pages, but as
> zone->all_unreclaimable = 1, so it loop again and again. Even when
> zone->pages_scanned also becomes very large. It will block the process
> for long time, until some watchdog thread detect this and kill this
> process. Though it's in __alloc_pages_slowpath, but it's too slow right?
> Maybe cost over 50 seconds or even more.

> I think it's not as expected right?  Can we also add below check in the
> function all_unreclaimable() to terminate this loop?
>
> @@ -2355,6 +2355,8 @@ static bool all_unreclaimable(struct zonelist *zonelist,
>                         continue;
>                 if (!zone->all_unreclaimable)
>                         return false;
> +               if (sc->nr_reclaimed == 0 && !zone_reclaimable(zone))
> +                       return true;
>         }

Mel?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>