From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:35:13 -0700 From: James Washer Subject: Re: Question about OOM-Killer Message-Id: <20050725173514.107aaa1b.washer@trlp.com> In-Reply-To: <73740000.1122331287@flay> References: <20050718122101.751125ef.washer@trlp.com> <20050718123650.01a49f31.washer@trlp.com> <20050723130048.GA16460@dmt.cnet> <20050725121130.5fed7286.washer@trlp.com> <73740000.1122331287@flay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@muc.de List-ID: Already been done... but I'd not had much time to chase it.. This is my desktop/workstation, so difficult for me to refine the debugging, in any event, here's the backtrace. This is consistent across about 20 events. kernel: Call Trace:{out_of_memory+275} {autoremove_wake_function+0} kernel: {__alloc_pages+793} {cache_grow+269} kernel: {cache_alloc_refill+442} {kmem_cache_alloc+92} kernel: {:sd_mod:sd_revalidate_disk+155} kernel: {pagevec_lookup+23} {invalidate_mapping_pages+208} kernel: {invalidate_bh_lru+0} {flat_send_IPI_allbutself+20} kernel: {smp_call_function+62} {check_disk_change+89} kernel: {:sd_mod:sd_open+257} {do_open+190} kernel: {blkdev_open+33} {dentry_open+224} kernel: {filp_open+63} {get_unused_fd+220} kernel: {sys_open+62} {system_call+126} kernel: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:41:27 -0700 "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > Jim, does seem bloody silly to be shooting stuff here, and is > probably simple to fix ... however, would be useful to see where > the DMA allocs are coming from as well, any chance you could dump > a stack backtrace in __alloc_pages when we spec a mask for DMA alloc? > > M. > > --On Monday, July 25, 2005 12:11:30 -0700 James Washer wrote: > > > Pretty typical message here... > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd1 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA per-cpu: > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal per-cpu: > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16 > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem per-cpu: empty > > Jul 6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: > > Jul 6 17:31:31 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): SIGHUP received, reloading all databases > > Jul 6 17:31:37 p6 kernel: Free pages: 16236kB (0kB HighMem) > > Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[9041]: session closed for user root > > Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[10645]: session closed for user root > > Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[8044]: session closed for user root > > Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[7228]: session closed for user root > > Jul 6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[16136]: session closed for user root > > Jul 6 17:31:48 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory" to a read-only configuration source at position 0 > > Jul 6 17:31:49 p6 kernel: Active:596167 inactive:854867 dirty:624740 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:4059 slab:52688 mapped:595231 pagetables:4862 > > Jul 6 17:32:00 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readwrite:/home/washer/.gconf" to a writable configuration source at position 1 > > Jul 6 17:32:02 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA free:20kB min:24kB low:28kB high:36kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:1 all_unreclaimable? yes > > Jul 6 17:32:04 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults" to a read-only configuration source at position 2 > > Jul 6 17:32:06 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 7152 7152 > > Jul 6 17:32:11 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal free:16216kB min:10808kB low:13508kB high:16212kB active:2384668kB inactive:3419468kB present:7323648kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem free:0kB min:128kB low:160kB high:192kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA: 1*4kB 0*8kB 1*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 20kB > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal: 34*4kB 192*8kB 53*16kB 92*32kB 2*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 1*2048kB 2*4096kB = 16216kB > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem: empty > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Swap cache: add 48, delete 48, find 0/0, race 0+0 > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Free swap = 8385728kB > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Total swap = 8385920kB > > Jul 6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Out of Memory: Killed process 10475 (firefox-bin). > > > > > > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:00:48 -0300 > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > >> > >> James, > >> > >> Can you send the OOM killer output? > >> > >> I dont know which devices part of an x86-64 system should > >> be limited to 16Mb of physical addressing. Andi? > >> > >> I don't think that any devices should have 16MB limitation > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:36:50PM -0700, James Washer wrote: > >> > Sorry, I should have added... > >> > 2.6.11.10, > >> > x86-64 dual proc (Intel Xeon 3.4GHz) > >> > 6GiB ram > >> > Intel Corporation 82801EB (ICH5) SATA Controller (rev 0) > >> > Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 > >> > Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 6Y160M0 Rev: YAR5 > >> > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 > >> > Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00 > >> > Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 7Y250M0 Rev: YAR5 > >> > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:21:01 -0700 > >> > James Washer wrote: > >> > > >> > > I'm chasing down a system problem where the DMA memory (x86-64, god knows why it is using DMA memory) > >> > drops below the minimum, and the OOM-Killer is fired off. > >> > > > >> > > It just strikes me odd that the OOM-Killer would be called at all for DMA memory. > >> > What's the chance of regaining DMA memory by killing user land processes? > >> > > > >> > > I'll admit, I know very little about linux VM, so perhaps I'm missing how oom killing can be helpful here. > > -- > > 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: email@kvack.org > > > > > -- 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: email@kvack.org