xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.39-rc4+: oom-killer busy killing tasks

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>