* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
[not found] <51B05616.9050501@adocean-global.com>
@ 2013-06-06 15:57 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2013-06-06 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Nowojski; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
[CCing linux-mm and lkml]
On Thu 06-06-13 11:27:50, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
> cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
> mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
> some direction where to look for/ask.
>
> We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
> heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
> (RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
> following limits:
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
> memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
> 14183038976
> 15601344512
I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
> Each process is being started in separate cgroup, with
> memory_soft_limit set to 1GB.
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ ls | grep subtask
> subtask5462692
> subtask5462697
> subtask5462698
> subtask5462699
> subtask5462700
> subtask5462701
> subtask5462702
> subtask5462703
> subtask5462704
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat subtask5462704/memory.limit_in_bytes
> subtask5462704/memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
> subtask5462704/memory.soft_limit_in_bytes
> 9223372036854775807
> 9223372036854775807
> 1073741824
>
> Memory usage is following:
>
> free -g
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 14 14 0 0 0 12
> -/+ buffers/cache: 1 13
> Swap: 1 0 1
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.stat
> cache 13208932352
> rss 0
> hierarchical_memory_limit 14183038976
> hierarchical_memsw_limit 15601344512
> total_cache 13775765504
> total_rss 264949760
> total_swap 135974912
>
> In other words, most memory is used by page cache and everything IMO
> should work just fine, but it isn't. Every couple of minutes, one of
> the processes is being killed by OOM Killer, triggered from IO read
> and "add_to_page_cache" (full stack attached below). For me this is
> ridiculous behavior. Process is trying to put something into page
> cache, but there is no free memory (because everything is eaten by
> page_cache) thus triggering OOM Killer. Why? Most of this page cache
> is not even used - at least not heavily used. Is this a bug? Stupid
> feature? Or am I missing something? Our configuration:
It sounds like a bug to me. If you had a small groups I would say that
the memory reclaim is not able to free any memory because almost all
the pages on the LRU are dirty and dirty pages throttling is not memcg
aware but your groups contain a lot of pages and all of they shouldn't
be dirty because the global dirty memory throttling should slow down
writers and writeback should have already started.
This has been fixed (or worked around to be more precise) by e62e384e
(memcg: prevent OOM with too many dirty pages) in 3.6.
Maybe you could try this patch and see if it helps. I would be sceptical
but it is worth trying.
The core thing to find out is why the hard limit reclaim is not able to
free anything. Unfortunatelly we do not have memcg reclaim statistics so
it would be a bit harder. I would start with the above patch first and
then I can prepare some debugging patches for you.
Also does 3.4 vanila (or the stable kernel) behave the same way? Is the
current vanilla behaving the same way?
Finally, have you seen the issue for a longer time or it started showing
up only now?
> cat /etc/issue
> Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS
>
> uname -a
> Linux alfa 3.4.35-030435-generic #201303031830 SMP Sun Mar 3
> 23:31:50 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> regards, Piotr Nowojski
>
>
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398303] gzip invoked
> oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, oom_adj=0, oom_score_adj=0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398308] gzip
> cpuset=subtask5452469 mems_allowed=0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398311] Pid: 416, comm: gzip
> Not tainted 3.4.35-030435-generic #201303031830
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398314] Call Trace:
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398323] [<ffffffff81668a2d>]
> dump_header+0x86/0xc0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398326] [<ffffffff81668b1e>]
> oom_kill_process.part.8+0x55/0x264
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398331] [<ffffffff81122f54>]
> oom_kill_process+0x34/0x40
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398334] [<ffffffff81123016>]
> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0xb6/0x100
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398339] [<ffffffff81179500>]
> mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0x160/0x2d0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398342] [<ffffffff8117507a>] ?
> mem_cgroup_margin+0xaa/0xb0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398345] [<ffffffff81175340>] ?
> mc_handle_file_pte+0xd0/0xd0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398347] [<ffffffff811797a8>]
> mem_cgroup_do_charge+0x138/0x160
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398350] [<ffffffff811798cf>]
> __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0xff/0x3a0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398354] [<ffffffff81290430>] ?
> fuse_readpages+0xe0/0xe0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398357] [<ffffffff8117a110>]
> mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x60/0xa0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398360] [<ffffffff8117abce>]
> mem_cgroup_cache_charge+0xbe/0xd0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398363] [<ffffffff8128f7cd>] ?
> fuse_wait_on_page_writeback+0x1d/0xa0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398366] [<ffffffff8111fbdc>]
> add_to_page_cache_locked+0x4c/0xa0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398369] [<ffffffff8111fc51>]
> add_to_page_cache_lru+0x21/0x50
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398372] [<ffffffff8112b1fc>]
> read_cache_pages+0x7c/0x120
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398375] [<ffffffff812903d4>]
> fuse_readpages+0x84/0xe0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398377] [<ffffffff8112ae98>]
> read_pages+0x48/0x100
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398380] [<ffffffff8112b0ab>]
> __do_page_cache_readahead+0x15b/0x170
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398383] [<ffffffff8112b421>]
> ra_submit+0x21/0x30
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398385] [<ffffffff8112b545>]
> ondemand_readahead+0x115/0x230
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398388] [<ffffffff8112b6e8>]
> page_cache_async_readahead+0x88/0xb0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398393] [<ffffffff81324fbe>] ?
> radix_tree_lookup_slot+0xe/0x10
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398396] [<ffffffff8111f9ce>] ?
> find_get_page+0x1e/0x90
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398399] [<ffffffff81120319>]
> do_generic_file_read.constprop.33+0x269/0x440
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398402] [<ffffffff8112128f>]
> generic_file_aio_read+0xef/0x280
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398406] [<ffffffff811896dc>] ?
> pipe_write+0x2fc/0x590
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398408] [<ffffffff8128efcb>]
> fuse_file_aio_read+0x7b/0xa0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398412] [<ffffffff8117f80a>]
> do_sync_read+0xda/0x120
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398416] [<ffffffff81040b15>] ?
> pvclock_clocksource_read+0x55/0xf0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398420] [<ffffffff812adb33>] ?
> security_file_permission+0x93/0xb0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398424] [<ffffffff8117fc91>] ?
> rw_verify_area+0x61/0xf0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398427] [<ffffffff81180170>]
> vfs_read+0xb0/0x180
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398430] [<ffffffff8118028a>]
> sys_read+0x4a/0x90
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398434] [<ffffffff8167f34e>] ?
> do_device_not_available+0xe/0x10
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398438] [<ffffffff81686969>]
> system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398441] Task in
> /taskell2/subtask5452467 killed as a result of limit of /taskell2
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398444] memory: usage
> 13850624kB, limit 13850624kB, failcnt 35456895
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398446] memory+swap: usage
> 13865844kB, limit 15235688kB, failcnt 63280
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
@ 2013-06-06 15:57 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2013-06-06 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Nowojski; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
[CCing linux-mm and lkml]
On Thu 06-06-13 11:27:50, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
> cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
> mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
> some direction where to look for/ask.
>
> We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
> heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
> (RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
> following limits:
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
> memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
> 14183038976
> 15601344512
I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
> Each process is being started in separate cgroup, with
> memory_soft_limit set to 1GB.
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ ls | grep subtask
> subtask5462692
> subtask5462697
> subtask5462698
> subtask5462699
> subtask5462700
> subtask5462701
> subtask5462702
> subtask5462703
> subtask5462704
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat subtask5462704/memory.limit_in_bytes
> subtask5462704/memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
> subtask5462704/memory.soft_limit_in_bytes
> 9223372036854775807
> 9223372036854775807
> 1073741824
>
> Memory usage is following:
>
> free -g
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 14 14 0 0 0 12
> -/+ buffers/cache: 1 13
> Swap: 1 0 1
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.stat
> cache 13208932352
> rss 0
> hierarchical_memory_limit 14183038976
> hierarchical_memsw_limit 15601344512
> total_cache 13775765504
> total_rss 264949760
> total_swap 135974912
>
> In other words, most memory is used by page cache and everything IMO
> should work just fine, but it isn't. Every couple of minutes, one of
> the processes is being killed by OOM Killer, triggered from IO read
> and "add_to_page_cache" (full stack attached below). For me this is
> ridiculous behavior. Process is trying to put something into page
> cache, but there is no free memory (because everything is eaten by
> page_cache) thus triggering OOM Killer. Why? Most of this page cache
> is not even used - at least not heavily used. Is this a bug? Stupid
> feature? Or am I missing something? Our configuration:
It sounds like a bug to me. If you had a small groups I would say that
the memory reclaim is not able to free any memory because almost all
the pages on the LRU are dirty and dirty pages throttling is not memcg
aware but your groups contain a lot of pages and all of they shouldn't
be dirty because the global dirty memory throttling should slow down
writers and writeback should have already started.
This has been fixed (or worked around to be more precise) by e62e384e
(memcg: prevent OOM with too many dirty pages) in 3.6.
Maybe you could try this patch and see if it helps. I would be sceptical
but it is worth trying.
The core thing to find out is why the hard limit reclaim is not able to
free anything. Unfortunatelly we do not have memcg reclaim statistics so
it would be a bit harder. I would start with the above patch first and
then I can prepare some debugging patches for you.
Also does 3.4 vanila (or the stable kernel) behave the same way? Is the
current vanilla behaving the same way?
Finally, have you seen the issue for a longer time or it started showing
up only now?
> cat /etc/issue
> Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS
>
> uname -a
> Linux alfa 3.4.35-030435-generic #201303031830 SMP Sun Mar 3
> 23:31:50 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> regards, Piotr Nowojski
>
>
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398303] gzip invoked
> oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd0, order=0, oom_adj=0, oom_score_adj=0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398308] gzip
> cpuset=subtask5452469 mems_allowed=0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398311] Pid: 416, comm: gzip
> Not tainted 3.4.35-030435-generic #201303031830
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398314] Call Trace:
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398323] [<ffffffff81668a2d>]
> dump_header+0x86/0xc0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398326] [<ffffffff81668b1e>]
> oom_kill_process.part.8+0x55/0x264
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398331] [<ffffffff81122f54>]
> oom_kill_process+0x34/0x40
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398334] [<ffffffff81123016>]
> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0xb6/0x100
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398339] [<ffffffff81179500>]
> mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0x160/0x2d0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398342] [<ffffffff8117507a>] ?
> mem_cgroup_margin+0xaa/0xb0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398345] [<ffffffff81175340>] ?
> mc_handle_file_pte+0xd0/0xd0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398347] [<ffffffff811797a8>]
> mem_cgroup_do_charge+0x138/0x160
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398350] [<ffffffff811798cf>]
> __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0xff/0x3a0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398354] [<ffffffff81290430>] ?
> fuse_readpages+0xe0/0xe0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398357] [<ffffffff8117a110>]
> mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x60/0xa0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398360] [<ffffffff8117abce>]
> mem_cgroup_cache_charge+0xbe/0xd0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398363] [<ffffffff8128f7cd>] ?
> fuse_wait_on_page_writeback+0x1d/0xa0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398366] [<ffffffff8111fbdc>]
> add_to_page_cache_locked+0x4c/0xa0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398369] [<ffffffff8111fc51>]
> add_to_page_cache_lru+0x21/0x50
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398372] [<ffffffff8112b1fc>]
> read_cache_pages+0x7c/0x120
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398375] [<ffffffff812903d4>]
> fuse_readpages+0x84/0xe0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398377] [<ffffffff8112ae98>]
> read_pages+0x48/0x100
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398380] [<ffffffff8112b0ab>]
> __do_page_cache_readahead+0x15b/0x170
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398383] [<ffffffff8112b421>]
> ra_submit+0x21/0x30
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398385] [<ffffffff8112b545>]
> ondemand_readahead+0x115/0x230
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398388] [<ffffffff8112b6e8>]
> page_cache_async_readahead+0x88/0xb0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398393] [<ffffffff81324fbe>] ?
> radix_tree_lookup_slot+0xe/0x10
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398396] [<ffffffff8111f9ce>] ?
> find_get_page+0x1e/0x90
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398399] [<ffffffff81120319>]
> do_generic_file_read.constprop.33+0x269/0x440
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398402] [<ffffffff8112128f>]
> generic_file_aio_read+0xef/0x280
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398406] [<ffffffff811896dc>] ?
> pipe_write+0x2fc/0x590
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398408] [<ffffffff8128efcb>]
> fuse_file_aio_read+0x7b/0xa0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398412] [<ffffffff8117f80a>]
> do_sync_read+0xda/0x120
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398416] [<ffffffff81040b15>] ?
> pvclock_clocksource_read+0x55/0xf0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398420] [<ffffffff812adb33>] ?
> security_file_permission+0x93/0xb0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398424] [<ffffffff8117fc91>] ?
> rw_verify_area+0x61/0xf0
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398427] [<ffffffff81180170>]
> vfs_read+0xb0/0x180
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398430] [<ffffffff8118028a>]
> sys_read+0x4a/0x90
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398434] [<ffffffff8167f34e>] ?
> do_device_not_available+0xe/0x10
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398438] [<ffffffff81686969>]
> system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398441] Task in
> /taskell2/subtask5452467 killed as a result of limit of /taskell2
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398444] memory: usage
> 13850624kB, limit 13850624kB, failcnt 35456895
> Jun 5 17:27:10 alfa kernel: [3634217.398446] memory+swap: usage
> 13865844kB, limit 15235688kB, failcnt 63280
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
2013-06-06 15:57 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2013-06-07 15:13 ` Piotr Nowojski
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Piotr Nowojski @ 2013-06-07 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
W dniu 06.06.2013 17:57, Michal Hocko pisze:
>
>> >In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
>> >cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
>> >mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
>> >some direction where to look for/ask.
>> >
>> >We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
>> >heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
>> >(RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
>> >following limits:
>> >
>> >/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
>> >memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
>> >14183038976
>> >15601344512
> I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
System has been rebooted since last test, so I can not guarantee that it
was set for 100%, but it should have been. Currently I'm rerunning this
scenario that lead to the described problem with:
/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat memory.use_hierarchy ../memory.use_hierarchy
1
0
Where root cgroup, doesn't have any limits set.
/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat ../memory*limit*
9223372036854775807
9223372036854775807
9223372036854775807
>> >Each process is being started in separate cgroup, with
>> >memory_soft_limit set to 1GB.
>> >
>> >/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ ls | grep subtask
>> >subtask5462692
>> >subtask5462697
>> >subtask5462698
>> >subtask5462699
>> >subtask5462700
>> >subtask5462701
>> >subtask5462702
>> >subtask5462703
>> >subtask5462704
>> >
>> >/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat subtask5462704/memory.limit_in_bytes
>> >subtask5462704/memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
>> >subtask5462704/memory.soft_limit_in_bytes
>> >9223372036854775807
>> >9223372036854775807
>> >1073741824
>> >
>> >Memory usage is following:
>> >
>> >free -g
>> > total used free shared buffers cached
>> >Mem: 14 14 0 0 0 12
>> >-/+ buffers/cache: 1 13
>> >Swap: 1 0 1
>> >
>> >/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.stat
>> >cache 13208932352
>> >rss 0
>> >hierarchical_memory_limit 14183038976
>> >hierarchical_memsw_limit 15601344512
>> >total_cache 13775765504
>> >total_rss 264949760
>> >total_swap 135974912
>> >
>> >In other words, most memory is used by page cache and everything IMO
>> >should work just fine, but it isn't. Every couple of minutes, one of
>> >the processes is being killed by OOM Killer, triggered from IO read
>> >and "add_to_page_cache" (full stack attached below). For me this is
>> >ridiculous behavior. Process is trying to put something into page
>> >cache, but there is no free memory (because everything is eaten by
>> >page_cache) thus triggering OOM Killer. Why? Most of this page cache
>> >is not even used - at least not heavily used. Is this a bug? Stupid
>> >feature? Or am I missing something? Our configuration:
> It sounds like a bug to me. If you had a small groups I would say that
> the memory reclaim is not able to free any memory because almost all
> the pages on the LRU are dirty and dirty pages throttling is not memcg
> aware but your groups contain a lot of pages and all of they shouldn't
> be dirty because the global dirty memory throttling should slow down
> writers and writeback should have already started.
>
> This has been fixed (or worked around to be more precise) by e62e384e
> (memcg: prevent OOM with too many dirty pages) in 3.6.
>
> Maybe you could try this patch and see if it helps. I would be sceptical
> but it is worth trying.
>
> The core thing to find out is why the hard limit reclaim is not able to
> free anything. Unfortunatelly we do not have memcg reclaim statistics so
> it would be a bit harder. I would start with the above patch first and
> then I can prepare some debugging patches for you.
I will try 3.6 (probably 3.7) kernel after weekend - unfortunately
repeating whole scenario is taking 10-30 hours because of very slowly
growing page cache.
>
> Also does 3.4 vanila (or the stable kernel) behave the same way? Is the
> current vanilla behaving the same way?
I don't know, we are using standard kernel that comes from Ubuntu.
>
> Finally, have you seen the issue for a longer time or it started showing
> up only now?
>
This system is very new. We have started testing scenario which
triggered OOM something like one week ago and we have immediately hit
this issue. Previously, with different scenarios and different memory
usage by processes we didn't have this issue.
Piotr Nowojski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
@ 2013-06-07 15:13 ` Piotr Nowojski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Piotr Nowojski @ 2013-06-07 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
W dniu 06.06.2013 17:57, Michal Hocko pisze:
>
>> >In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
>> >cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
>> >mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
>> >some direction where to look for/ask.
>> >
>> >We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
>> >heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
>> >(RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
>> >following limits:
>> >
>> >/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
>> >memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
>> >14183038976
>> >15601344512
> I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
System has been rebooted since last test, so I can not guarantee that it
was set for 100%, but it should have been. Currently I'm rerunning this
scenario that lead to the described problem with:
/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat memory.use_hierarchy ../memory.use_hierarchy
1
0
Where root cgroup, doesn't have any limits set.
/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat ../memory*limit*
9223372036854775807
9223372036854775807
9223372036854775807
>> >Each process is being started in separate cgroup, with
>> >memory_soft_limit set to 1GB.
>> >
>> >/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ ls | grep subtask
>> >subtask5462692
>> >subtask5462697
>> >subtask5462698
>> >subtask5462699
>> >subtask5462700
>> >subtask5462701
>> >subtask5462702
>> >subtask5462703
>> >subtask5462704
>> >
>> >/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat subtask5462704/memory.limit_in_bytes
>> >subtask5462704/memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
>> >subtask5462704/memory.soft_limit_in_bytes
>> >9223372036854775807
>> >9223372036854775807
>> >1073741824
>> >
>> >Memory usage is following:
>> >
>> >free -g
>> > total used free shared buffers cached
>> >Mem: 14 14 0 0 0 12
>> >-/+ buffers/cache: 1 13
>> >Swap: 1 0 1
>> >
>> >/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.stat
>> >cache 13208932352
>> >rss 0
>> >hierarchical_memory_limit 14183038976
>> >hierarchical_memsw_limit 15601344512
>> >total_cache 13775765504
>> >total_rss 264949760
>> >total_swap 135974912
>> >
>> >In other words, most memory is used by page cache and everything IMO
>> >should work just fine, but it isn't. Every couple of minutes, one of
>> >the processes is being killed by OOM Killer, triggered from IO read
>> >and "add_to_page_cache" (full stack attached below). For me this is
>> >ridiculous behavior. Process is trying to put something into page
>> >cache, but there is no free memory (because everything is eaten by
>> >page_cache) thus triggering OOM Killer. Why? Most of this page cache
>> >is not even used - at least not heavily used. Is this a bug? Stupid
>> >feature? Or am I missing something? Our configuration:
> It sounds like a bug to me. If you had a small groups I would say that
> the memory reclaim is not able to free any memory because almost all
> the pages on the LRU are dirty and dirty pages throttling is not memcg
> aware but your groups contain a lot of pages and all of they shouldn't
> be dirty because the global dirty memory throttling should slow down
> writers and writeback should have already started.
>
> This has been fixed (or worked around to be more precise) by e62e384e
> (memcg: prevent OOM with too many dirty pages) in 3.6.
>
> Maybe you could try this patch and see if it helps. I would be sceptical
> but it is worth trying.
>
> The core thing to find out is why the hard limit reclaim is not able to
> free anything. Unfortunatelly we do not have memcg reclaim statistics so
> it would be a bit harder. I would start with the above patch first and
> then I can prepare some debugging patches for you.
I will try 3.6 (probably 3.7) kernel after weekend - unfortunately
repeating whole scenario is taking 10-30 hours because of very slowly
growing page cache.
>
> Also does 3.4 vanila (or the stable kernel) behave the same way? Is the
> current vanilla behaving the same way?
I don't know, we are using standard kernel that comes from Ubuntu.
>
> Finally, have you seen the issue for a longer time or it started showing
> up only now?
>
This system is very new. We have started testing scenario which
triggered OOM something like one week ago and we have immediately hit
this issue. Previously, with different scenarios and different memory
usage by processes we didn't have this issue.
Piotr Nowojski
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
2013-06-07 15:13 ` Piotr Nowojski
@ 2013-06-07 15:36 ` Michal Hocko
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2013-06-07 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Nowojski; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
On Fri 07-06-13 17:13:55, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> W dniu 06.06.2013 17:57, Michal Hocko pisze:
> >>>In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
> >>>cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
> >>>mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
> >>>some direction where to look for/ask.
> >>>
> >>>We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
> >>>heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
> >>>(RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
> >>>following limits:
> >>>
> >>>/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
> >>>memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
> >>>14183038976
> >>>15601344512
> >I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
> System has been rebooted since last test, so I can not guarantee
> that it was set for 100%, but it should have been. Currently I'm
> rerunning this scenario that lead to the described problem with:
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat memory.use_hierarchy ../memory.use_hierarchy
> 1
> 0
OK, good. Your numbers suggeste that the hierachy _is_ in use. I just
wanted to be 100% sure.
[...]
> >The core thing to find out is why the hard limit reclaim is not able to
> >free anything. Unfortunatelly we do not have memcg reclaim statistics so
> >it would be a bit harder. I would start with the above patch first and
> >then I can prepare some debugging patches for you.
> I will try 3.6 (probably 3.7) kernel after weekend - unfortunately
I would simply try 3.9 (stable) and skip those two.
> repeating whole scenario is taking 10-30 hours because of very
> slowly growing page cache.
OK, this is good to know.
> >Also does 3.4 vanila (or the stable kernel) behave the same way? Is the
> >current vanilla behaving the same way?
> I don't know, we are using standard kernel that comes from Ubuntu.
yes, but I guess ubuntu, like any other distro puts some pathces on top
of vanilla kernel.
> >Finally, have you seen the issue for a longer time or it started showing
> >up only now?
> >
> This system is very new. We have started testing scenario which
> triggered OOM something like one week ago and we have immediately
> hit this issue. Previously, with different scenarios and different
> memory usage by processes we didn't have this issue.
OK
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
@ 2013-06-07 15:36 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2013-06-07 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Nowojski; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
On Fri 07-06-13 17:13:55, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> W dniu 06.06.2013 17:57, Michal Hocko pisze:
> >>>In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
> >>>cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
> >>>mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
> >>>some direction where to look for/ask.
> >>>
> >>>We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
> >>>heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
> >>>(RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
> >>>following limits:
> >>>
> >>>/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
> >>>memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
> >>>14183038976
> >>>15601344512
> >I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
> System has been rebooted since last test, so I can not guarantee
> that it was set for 100%, but it should have been. Currently I'm
> rerunning this scenario that lead to the described problem with:
>
> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat memory.use_hierarchy ../memory.use_hierarchy
> 1
> 0
OK, good. Your numbers suggeste that the hierachy _is_ in use. I just
wanted to be 100% sure.
[...]
> >The core thing to find out is why the hard limit reclaim is not able to
> >free anything. Unfortunatelly we do not have memcg reclaim statistics so
> >it would be a bit harder. I would start with the above patch first and
> >then I can prepare some debugging patches for you.
> I will try 3.6 (probably 3.7) kernel after weekend - unfortunately
I would simply try 3.9 (stable) and skip those two.
> repeating whole scenario is taking 10-30 hours because of very
> slowly growing page cache.
OK, this is good to know.
> >Also does 3.4 vanila (or the stable kernel) behave the same way? Is the
> >current vanilla behaving the same way?
> I don't know, we are using standard kernel that comes from Ubuntu.
yes, but I guess ubuntu, like any other distro puts some pathces on top
of vanilla kernel.
> >Finally, have you seen the issue for a longer time or it started showing
> >up only now?
> >
> This system is very new. We have started testing scenario which
> triggered OOM something like one week ago and we have immediately
> hit this issue. Previously, with different scenarios and different
> memory usage by processes we didn't have this issue.
OK
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
2013-06-07 15:36 ` Michal Hocko
@ 2013-06-11 8:35 ` Piotr Nowojski
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Piotr Nowojski @ 2013-06-11 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
W dniu 07.06.2013 17:36, Michal Hocko pisze:
> On Fri 07-06-13 17:13:55, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
>> W dniu 06.06.2013 17:57, Michal Hocko pisze:
>>>>> In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
>>>>> cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
>>>>> mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
>>>>> some direction where to look for/ask.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
>>>>> heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
>>>>> (RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
>>>>> following limits:
>>>>>
>>>>> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
>>>>> memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
>>>>> 14183038976
>>>>> 15601344512
>>> I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
>> System has been rebooted since last test, so I can not guarantee
>> that it was set for 100%, but it should have been. Currently I'm
>> rerunning this scenario that lead to the described problem with:
>>
>> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat memory.use_hierarchy ../memory.use_hierarchy
>> 1
>> 0
> OK, good. Your numbers suggeste that the hierachy _is_ in use. I just
> wanted to be 100% sure.
>
I don't know what has solved this problem, but we weren't able to
reproduce this problem during whole weekend. Most likely there was some
problem with our code initializing cgroups configuration regarding
use_hierarchy (can writing 1 to memory.use_hierarchy silently fail?). I
have added assertions for checking this parameter before starting and
after initialization of our application. If problem reoccur, I will
proceed as you suggested before - trying latest kernels.
Thanks, Piotr Nowojski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
@ 2013-06-11 8:35 ` Piotr Nowojski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Piotr Nowojski @ 2013-06-11 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
W dniu 07.06.2013 17:36, Michal Hocko pisze:
> On Fri 07-06-13 17:13:55, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
>> W dniu 06.06.2013 17:57, Michal Hocko pisze:
>>>>> In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
>>>>> cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
>>>>> mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
>>>>> some direction where to look for/ask.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
>>>>> heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
>>>>> (RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
>>>>> following limits:
>>>>>
>>>>> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
>>>>> memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
>>>>> 14183038976
>>>>> 15601344512
>>> I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
>> System has been rebooted since last test, so I can not guarantee
>> that it was set for 100%, but it should have been. Currently I'm
>> rerunning this scenario that lead to the described problem with:
>>
>> /sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat memory.use_hierarchy ../memory.use_hierarchy
>> 1
>> 0
> OK, good. Your numbers suggeste that the hierachy _is_ in use. I just
> wanted to be 100% sure.
>
I don't know what has solved this problem, but we weren't able to
reproduce this problem during whole weekend. Most likely there was some
problem with our code initializing cgroups configuration regarding
use_hierarchy (can writing 1 to memory.use_hierarchy silently fail?). I
have added assertions for checking this parameter before starting and
after initialization of our application. If problem reoccur, I will
proceed as you suggested before - trying latest kernels.
Thanks, Piotr Nowojski
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
2013-06-11 8:35 ` Piotr Nowojski
@ 2013-06-11 9:49 ` Michal Hocko
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2013-06-11 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Nowojski; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
On Tue 11-06-13 10:35:01, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> W dniu 07.06.2013 17:36, Michal Hocko pisze:
> >On Fri 07-06-13 17:13:55, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> >>W dniu 06.06.2013 17:57, Michal Hocko pisze:
> >>>>>In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
> >>>>>cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
> >>>>>mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
> >>>>>some direction where to look for/ask.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
> >>>>>heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
> >>>>>(RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
> >>>>>following limits:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
> >>>>>memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
> >>>>>14183038976
> >>>>>15601344512
> >>>I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
> >>System has been rebooted since last test, so I can not guarantee
> >>that it was set for 100%, but it should have been. Currently I'm
> >>rerunning this scenario that lead to the described problem with:
> >>
> >>/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat memory.use_hierarchy ../memory.use_hierarchy
> >>1
> >>0
> >OK, good. Your numbers suggeste that the hierachy _is_ in use. I just
> >wanted to be 100% sure.
> >
>
> I don't know what has solved this problem, but we weren't able to
> reproduce this problem during whole weekend. Most likely there was
> some problem with our code initializing cgroups configuration
> regarding use_hierarchy (can writing 1 to memory.use_hierarchy
> silently fail?).
No it complains with EINVAL or EBUSY but maybe you have tripped over
bash built-in echo which doesn't return error codes properly AFAIR.
Always make sure you use /bin/echo. If you are doing initialization in
parallel then this in-deed might race and use_hierarchy fail to set to 1
if any children have been created in the mean time.
But again, your numbers suggested that the parent group collected
charges from children so this would be rather unexpected.
> I have added assertions for checking this parameter before starting
> and after initialization of our application. If problem reoccur, I
> will proceed as you suggested before - trying latest kernels.
>
> Thanks, Piotr Nowojski
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked
@ 2013-06-11 9:49 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2013-06-11 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Nowojski; +Cc: linux-mm, LKML
On Tue 11-06-13 10:35:01, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> W dniu 07.06.2013 17:36, Michal Hocko pisze:
> >On Fri 07-06-13 17:13:55, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> >>W dniu 06.06.2013 17:57, Michal Hocko pisze:
> >>>>>In our system we have hit some very annoying situation (bug?) with
> >>>>>cgroups. I'm writing to you, because I have found your posts on
> >>>>>mailing lists with similar topic. Maybe you could help us or point
> >>>>>some direction where to look for/ask.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We have system with ~15GB RAM (+2GB SWAP), and we are running ~10
> >>>>>heavy IO processes. Each process is using constantly 200-210MB RAM
> >>>>>(RSS) and a lot of page cache. All processes are in cgroup with
> >>>>>following limits:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2 $ cat memory.limit_in_bytes
> >>>>>memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes
> >>>>>14183038976
> >>>>>15601344512
> >>>I assume that memory.use_hierarchy is 1, right?
> >>System has been rebooted since last test, so I can not guarantee
> >>that it was set for 100%, but it should have been. Currently I'm
> >>rerunning this scenario that lead to the described problem with:
> >>
> >>/sys/fs/cgroup/taskell2# cat memory.use_hierarchy ../memory.use_hierarchy
> >>1
> >>0
> >OK, good. Your numbers suggeste that the hierachy _is_ in use. I just
> >wanted to be 100% sure.
> >
>
> I don't know what has solved this problem, but we weren't able to
> reproduce this problem during whole weekend. Most likely there was
> some problem with our code initializing cgroups configuration
> regarding use_hierarchy (can writing 1 to memory.use_hierarchy
> silently fail?).
No it complains with EINVAL or EBUSY but maybe you have tripped over
bash built-in echo which doesn't return error codes properly AFAIR.
Always make sure you use /bin/echo. If you are doing initialization in
parallel then this in-deed might race and use_hierarchy fail to set to 1
if any children have been created in the mean time.
But again, your numbers suggested that the parent group collected
charges from children so this would be rather unexpected.
> I have added assertions for checking this parameter before starting
> and after initialization of our application. If problem reoccur, I
> will proceed as you suggested before - trying latest kernels.
>
> Thanks, Piotr Nowojski
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-06-11 9:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <51B05616.9050501@adocean-global.com>
2013-06-06 15:57 ` OOM Killer and add_to_page_cache_locked Michal Hocko
2013-06-06 15:57 ` Michal Hocko
2013-06-07 15:13 ` Piotr Nowojski
2013-06-07 15:13 ` Piotr Nowojski
2013-06-07 15:36 ` Michal Hocko
2013-06-07 15:36 ` Michal Hocko
2013-06-11 8:35 ` Piotr Nowojski
2013-06-11 8:35 ` Piotr Nowojski
2013-06-11 9:49 ` Michal Hocko
2013-06-11 9:49 ` Michal Hocko
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.