linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: l.roehrs@profihost.ag,
	Daniel Aberger - Profihost AG <d.aberger@profihost.ag>,
	"n.fahldieck@profihost.ag" <n.fahldieck@profihost.ag>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: debug linux kernel memory management / pressure
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 08:42:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7cc0592c-228b-6e4b-0410-552ea5e08329@profihost.ag> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2b0cd84c-b5e5-033c-3bae-e108b038209b@suse.cz>

Hi Vlastimil,

sorry for the late reply i was on holiday.

Am 05.04.19 um 12:37 schrieb Vlastimil Babka:
> On 3/29/19 10:41 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> nobody an idea? I had another system today:
> 
> Well, isn't it still the same thing as we discussed in last autumn?
> You did report success with the ill-fated patch "mm: thp:  relax __GFP_THISNODE
> for MADV_HUGEPAGE mappings", or not?

No it's not. Last year those were KVM Host machines. These time it's a
LAMP machine. But i think i'll upgrade to 4.19.36 LTS and see if that
fixes the problem.

Thanks!

> 
>> # cat /proc/meminfo
>> MemTotal:       131911684 kB
>> MemFree:        25734836 kB
>> MemAvailable:   78158816 kB
>> Buffers:            2916 kB
>> Cached:         20650184 kB
>> SwapCached:       544016 kB
>> Active:         58999352 kB
>> Inactive:       10084060 kB
>> Active(anon):   43412532 kB
>> Inactive(anon):  5583220 kB
>> Active(file):   15586820 kB
>> Inactive(file):  4500840 kB
>> Unevictable:       35032 kB
>> Mlocked:           35032 kB
>> SwapTotal:       3905532 kB
>> SwapFree:              0 kB
>> Dirty:              1048 kB
>> Writeback:         20144 kB
>> AnonPages:      47923392 kB
>> Mapped:           775376 kB
>> Shmem:            561420 kB
>> Slab:           35798052 kB
>> SReclaimable:   34309112 kB
> 
> That's rather significant. Got a /proc/slabinfo from such system state?
> 
>> SUnreclaim:      1488940 kB
>> KernelStack:       42160 kB
>> PageTables:       248008 kB
>> NFS_Unstable:          0 kB
>> Bounce:                0 kB
>> WritebackTmp:          0 kB
>> CommitLimit:    69861372 kB
>> Committed_AS:   100328892 kB
>> VmallocTotal:   34359738367 kB
>> VmallocUsed:           0 kB
>> VmallocChunk:          0 kB
>> HardwareCorrupted:     0 kB
>> AnonHugePages:  19177472 kB
>> ShmemHugePages:        0 kB
>> ShmemPmdMapped:        0 kB
>> HugePages_Total:       0
>> HugePages_Free:        0
>> HugePages_Rsvd:        0
>> HugePages_Surp:        0
>> Hugepagesize:       2048 kB
>> DirectMap4k:      951376 kB
>> DirectMap2M:    87015424 kB
>> DirectMap1G:    48234496 kB
>>
>> # cat /proc/buddyinfo
>> Node 0, zone      DMA      1      0      0      0      2      1      1
>>     0      1      1      3
>> Node 0, zone    DMA32    372    418    403    395    371    322    262
>>   179    114      0      0
>> Node 0, zone   Normal  89147  96397  76496  56407  41671  29289  18142
>> 10278   4075      0      0
>> Node 1, zone   Normal 113266      0      1      1      1      1      1
>>     1      1      0      0
> 
> Node 1 seems quite fragmented. Again from last year I recall somebody (was it
> you?) capturing a larger series of snapshots where we saw a Sreclaimable rise
> due to some overnight 'find /' activity inflating dentry/inode caches which then
> got slowly reclaimed, but memory remained fragmented until enough of slab was
> reclaimed, and compaction couldn't help. drop_caches did help. Looks like this
> might be the same case. Add in something that tries to get large-order
> allocations on node 1 (e.g. with __GFP_THISNODE) and overreclaim will happen.
> 
>> But with high PSI / memory pressure values above 10-30.
>>
>> Greets,
>> Stefan
>> Am 27.03.19 um 11:56 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG:
>>> Hello list,
>>>
>>> i hope this is the right place to ask. If not i would be happy to point
>>> me to something else.
>>>
>>> I'm seeing the following behaviour on some of our hosts running a SLES
>>> 15 kernel (kernel v4.12 as it's base) but i don't think it's related to
>>> the kernel.
>>>
>>> At some "random" interval - mostly 3-6 weeks of uptime. Suddenly mem
>>> pressure rises and the linux cache (Cached: /proc/meminfo) drops from
>>> 12G to 3G. After that io pressure rises most probably due to low cache.
>>> But at the same time i've MemFree und MemAvailable at 19-22G.
>>>
>>> Why does this happen? How can i debug this situation? I would expect
>>> that the page / file cache never drops if there is so much free mem.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your help.
>>>
>>> Greets,
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>> Not sure whether needed but these are the vm. kernel settings:
>>> vm.admin_reserve_kbytes = 8192
>>> vm.block_dump = 0
>>> vm.compact_unevictable_allowed = 1
>>> vm.dirty_background_bytes = 0
>>> vm.dirty_background_ratio = 10
>>> vm.dirty_bytes = 0
>>> vm.dirty_expire_centisecs = 3000
>>> vm.dirty_ratio = 20
>>> vm.dirty_writeback_centisecs = 500
>>> vm.dirtytime_expire_seconds = 43200
>>> vm.drop_caches = 0
>>> vm.extfrag_threshold = 500
>>> vm.hugepages_treat_as_movable = 0
>>> vm.hugetlb_shm_group = 0
>>> vm.laptop_mode = 0
>>> vm.legacy_va_layout = 0
>>> vm.lowmem_reserve_ratio = 256   256     32      1
>>> vm.max_map_count = 65530
>>> vm.memory_failure_early_kill = 0
>>> vm.memory_failure_recovery = 1
>>> vm.min_free_kbytes = 393216
>>> vm.min_slab_ratio = 5
>>> vm.min_unmapped_ratio = 1
>>> vm.mmap_min_addr = 65536
>>> vm.mmap_rnd_bits = 28
>>> vm.mmap_rnd_compat_bits = 8
>>> vm.nr_hugepages = 0
>>> vm.nr_hugepages_mempolicy = 0
>>> vm.nr_overcommit_hugepages = 0
>>> vm.nr_pdflush_threads = 0
>>> vm.numa_zonelist_order = default
>>> vm.oom_dump_tasks = 1
>>> vm.oom_kill_allocating_task = 0
>>> vm.overcommit_kbytes = 0
>>> vm.overcommit_memory = 0
>>> vm.overcommit_ratio = 50
>>> vm.page-cluster = 3
>>> vm.panic_on_oom = 0
>>> vm.percpu_pagelist_fraction = 0
>>> vm.stat_interval = 1
>>> vm.swappiness = 50
>>> vm.user_reserve_kbytes = 131072
>>> vm.vfs_cache_pressure = 100
>>> vm.watermark_scale_factor = 10
>>> vm.zone_reclaim_mode = 0
>>>
>>
> 


      reply	other threads:[~2019-04-23  6:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-27 10:56 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2019-03-29  9:41 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2019-04-05 10:37   ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-04-23  6:42     ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7cc0592c-228b-6e4b-0410-552ea5e08329@profihost.ag \
    --to=s.priebe@profihost.ag \
    --cc=d.aberger@profihost.ag \
    --cc=l.roehrs@profihost.ag \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=n.fahldieck@profihost.ag \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox