| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: oom-killer busy killing tasks |
| From: | Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:16:29 +0900 |
| Cc: | Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qryhlZCSLLKEPU84dD39bt4id6WhzQYs4OP+Q55NyqA=; b=PC+J7HNDwWZGA72G8O8K89d/2gSh/ipSYcdqj16UMLAorPWUHHUTnjOxPHkM4n1+2J 4HfVOWg/sfV4F9S+Dx/ctN5A7p5GlXDoVh/vlVl4zjjYotNaYMahVOgAx7JS8Ev0HPKJ g0omdROQksd+KhBnZr6oog0P5VhCtAlL92LYE= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=e1fUr2DGEx3DPl3OiHYOKcxrKqSKSNsWWXs5r1dbqiRgV1k9SXR9ubsdswPoMx9JRq AaygkunUSB18dIdZInQXcjuJsmqwB14l3JtUT6tFZgqLITDRvo5VWUz+BXXAK8dQak9B HZ6leon2lB/Jlb3fmIPIF7zWT/+KG7RACfL3M= |
| In-reply-to: | <20110427102824.GI12436@dastard> |
| References: | <alpine.DEB.2.01.1104211841510.18728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110424234655.GC12436@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.01.1104242245090.18728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.DEB.2.01.1104250015480.18728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110427022655.GE12436@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.01.1104270042510.18728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110427102824.GI12436@dastard> |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:46:51AM -0700, Christian Kujau wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 at 12:26, Dave Chinner wrote: >> > What this shows is that VFS inode cache memory usage increases until >> > about the 550 sample mark before the VM starts to reclaim it with >> > extreme prejudice. At that point, I'd expect the XFS inode cache to >> > then shrink, and it doesn't. I've got no idea why the either the >> >> Do you remember any XFS changes past 2.6.38 that could be related to >> something like this? > > There's plenty of changes that coul dbe the cause - we've changed > the inode reclaim to run in the background out of a workqueue as > well as via the shrinker, so it could even be workqueue starvation > causing the the problem... RCU free starvation is another possibility? https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/25/124 -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2 question about XFS fragmentation and _fsr: SPLITTED Q1:sparse files, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: oom-killer busy killing tasks, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: oom-killer busy killing tasks, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: oom-killer busy killing tasks, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |