Re: Long lasting MM bug when swap is smaller than RAM

[Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58:19AM +0200, Attila Kinali wrote:
> Moin,
> 
> There has been a bug back in the 2.4.17 days that is somehow
> triggered by swap being smaller than RAM, which i thought had
> been fixed long ago, reappeared on one of the machines i manage.
> 
> <history>
> Back in 2002, i had a few machines, running 2.4.x kernels, which
> i upgraded heavily from some 16-64MB RAM to a couple 100MB
> (changing mainboards at times, but keeping the harddisks).
> Due to the upgrade of RAM, the swap size became a lot smaller
> than RAM size, sometimes not even half as much.
> Under most conditions these machines worked fine, but sometimes,
> they showed a strange behavior: At times, the swap use would grow
> (depending on the machine and its use faster or slower, sometimes
> at 1MB/minute) until it was full. I couldnt figure out what filled
> swap back then, couldnt find any programm that used a lot of memory.
> And even more, the RAM portion that was used as cache and buffers
> was most times still very large, ie it didnt seem like something using
> a lot of memory.
> After swap was full, nothing happend. No programms crashing, no errors
> in the logs, nothing.... Until later (between hours and a few weeks),
> the OOM would suddenly start to kick in and kill applications. This
> time, something would use a lot of memory, but i couldn't figure out
> what. None of the applications running would use more than usual.
> And even killing the usual culprits (Mozilla, X11,...) wouldnt help.
> The only cure was to reboot.
> 
> All the machines back then were running Debian, a vanilla kernel,
> and had more RAM than swap and were x86 boxes. Other than that,
> they didnt had much in common. One was a machine with an Adaptec
> 2940UW, others had IDE, one had a K6-III CPU, others were Intel.
> Some had a lot of disk, others very little. Machine usage was
> fileserver, firewall/router, desktop, laptop.
> 
> I reported this bug back then but never got an answer, so i used
> the only fix i had available back then: disable swap completely.
> </history>
> 
> Now, 7 years later, i have a machine that shows the same behavior.
> 
> Some data:
> 
> We have a HP DL380 G4 currently running a 2.6.29.4 vanilla kernel,
> compiled for x86 32 bit.
> It was originaly purchased in 2005 with 2GB RAM and a few weeks
> ago upgraded to 6GB (no other changes beside this and a kernel upgrade).
> The machine, being the MPlayer main server, runs a lighttpd, svnserve,
> mailman, postfix, bind. Ie nothing unusual and the applications didn't
> change in the last months (since the update from debian/etch to lenny).
> 
> ---
> root@natsuki:/home/attila# uname -a
> Linux natsuki 2.6.29.4 #1 SMP Sun May 31 22:13:21 CEST 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
> root@natsuki:/home/attila# uptime
>  11:41:07 up 29 days, 13:17,  5 users,  load average: 0.15, 0.36, 0.54
> root@natsuki:/home/attila# free -m
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
> Mem:          6023       5919        103          0        415       3873
> -/+ buffers/cache:       1630       4393
> Swap:         3812        879       2932
> ---

Hi Attila, 

What's your /proc/meminfo and/or /proc/vmstat contents?
Are you making use of tmpfs, or intel graphics devices with drm?

Thanks,
Fengguang

> I want to point your attention at the fact that the machine has now
> more RAM installed than it previously had RAM+Swap (ie before the upgrade).
> Ie there is no reason it would need to swap out, at least not so much.
> 
> What is even more interesting is the amount of swap used over time.
> Sampled every day at 10:00 CEST:
> 
> ---
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5893        130          0        405       3834
> Swap:         3812        190       3622
> 
> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5793        229          0        340       3939
> Swap:         3812        225       3586
> 
> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5820        203          0        341       3899
> Swap:         3812        275       3536
> 
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5264        758          0        459       3181
> Swap:         3812        325       3486
> 
> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5761        262          0        348       3865
> Swap:         3812        297       3514
> 
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5875        147          0        397       3681
> Swap:         3812        353       3458
> 
> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5748        275          0        193       3949
> Swap:         3812        415       3396
> 
> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5779        244          0        176       3924
> Swap:         3812        519       3292
> 
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5812        210          0        345       3856
> Swap:         3812        611       3200
> 
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5830        192          0        431       3688
> Swap:         3812        682       3129
> 
> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5697        326          0        442       3621
> Swap:         3812        719       3093
> 
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:00:02 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5890        132          0        402       3886
> Swap:         3812        784       3028
> 
> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:00:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Mem:          6023       5388        635          0        425       3321
> Swap:         3812        826       2985
> ---
> 
> As you can see, although memory usage didnt change much over time,
> swap usage increased from 190MB to 826MB in about two weeks.
> 
> As i'm pretty much clueless when it commes to how the linux VM works,
> i would appreciate it if someone could give me some pointers on how
> to figure out what causes this bug so that it could be fixed finally.
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance
> 
> 			Attila Kinali
> 
> --
> 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>

--
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>