Re: next-20200515: Xorg killed due to "OOM"

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	airlied@linux.ie, x86@kernel.org,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
	hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: next-20200515: Xorg killed due to "OOM"
Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 14:16:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200531121601.GA14196@duo.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200528120750.GC27484@dhcp22.suse.cz>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1949 bytes --]

On Thu 2020-05-28 14:07:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 28-05-20 14:03:54, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Thu 2020-05-28 11:05:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 26-05-20 11:10:54, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > [38617.276517] oom_reaper: reaped process 31769 (chromium), now anon-rss:0kB, file-rss:0kB, shmem-rss:7968kB
> > > > [38617.277232] Xorg invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x0(), order=0, oom_score_adj=0
> > > > [38617.277247] CPU: 0 PID: 2978 Comm: Xorg Not tainted 5.7.0-rc5-next-20200515+ #117
> > > > [38617.277256] Hardware name: LENOVO 17097HU/17097HU, BIOS 7BETD8WW (2.19 ) 03/31/2011
> > > > [38617.277266] Call Trace:
> > > > [38617.277286]  dump_stack+0x54/0x6e
> > > > [38617.277300]  dump_header+0x45/0x321
> > > > [38617.277313]  oom_kill_process.cold+0x9/0xe
> > > > [38617.277324]  ? out_of_memory+0x167/0x420
> > > > [38617.277336]  out_of_memory+0x1f2/0x420
> > > > [38617.277348]  pagefault_out_of_memory+0x34/0x56
> > > > [38617.277361]  mm_fault_error+0x4a/0x130
> > > > [38617.277372]  do_page_fault+0x3ce/0x416
> > > 
> > > The reason the OOM killer has been invoked is that the page fault
> > > handler has returned VM_FAULT_OOM. So this is not a result of the page
> > > allocator struggling to allocate a memory. It would be interesting to
> > > check which code path has returned this. 
> > 
> > Should the core WARN_ON if that happens and there's enough memory, or
> > something like that?
> 
> I wish it would simply go away. There shouldn't be really any reason for
> VM_FAULT_OOM to exist. The real low on memory situation is already
> handled in the page allocator.

Umm. Maybe the WARN_ON is first step in that direction? So we can see
what driver actually did that, and complain to its authors?

Best regards,
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel