xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "XFS: possible memory allocation deadlock in kmem_alloc" on high mem

To: Anders Ossowicki <aowi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: "XFS: possible memory allocation deadlock in kmem_alloc" on high memory machine
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 11:52:45 +1000
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150602120648.GA22111@otto>
References: <20150601145741.GA16608@otto> <20150601210113.GL24666@dastard> <20150602120648.GA22111@otto>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 02:06:48PM +0200, Anders Ossowicki wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:01:13PM +0200, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Nothing should go wrong - XFS will essentially block until it gets
> > the memory it requires.
> 
> Good to know, thanks!
> 
> > > We're running on 3.18.13, built from kernel.org git.
> > 
> > Right around the time that I was seeing all sorts of regressions
> > relating to low memory behaviour and the OOM killer....
> 
> We fought with some high cpu load issues back in march, related to
> memory management, and we ended up on a recent longterm kernel.
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/129858
> 
> > Ouch. 3TB of memory, and no higher order pages left? Do you have
> > memory compaction turned on? That should be reforming large pages in
> > this situation. What type of machine is it?
> 
> Memory compaction is turned on. It's an off-the-shelf dell server with 4
> 12c Xeon processors.
> 
> > Yes, memory fragmentation tends to be a MM problem; nothing XFS can
> > do about it.
> 
> Ya, knowing we're not in immediate danger of a filesystem meltdown, I
> think we'll tackle the fragmentation issue next.
> 
> > Especially as it appears that 2.8TB of your memory is in the page
> > cache and should be reclaimable.
> 
> Indeed. I haven't been able to catch the issue while it was ongoing,
> since upgrading to 3.13.18, but my guess is that we're not reclaiming
> the cache fast enough for some reason, possibly because it takes too
> long to find the best reclaimable regions with so many fragment to sift
> through.

You can always try to drop the page cache to see if that solves the
problem...

> As for the pertinent system info:
> 
> Linux 3.18.13 (we also saw the issue with 3.18.9)
> xfs_repair version 3.1.7
> 
> 4x Intel Xeon E7-8857 v2
> 
> $ cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal:       3170749444 kB
> MemFree:        18947564 kB
> MemAvailable:   2968870324 kB
> Buffers:          270704 kB
> Cached:         3008702200 kB
> SwapCached:            0 kB
> Active:         1617534420 kB
> Inactive:       1415684856 kB
> Active(anon):   156973416 kB
> Inactive(anon):  4856264 kB
> Active(file):   1460561004 kB
> Inactive(file): 1410828592 kB

This. You've got 2.8GB of reclaimable page cache there.

> Unevictable:           0 kB
> Mlocked:               0 kB
> SwapTotal:      25353212 kB
> SwapFree:       25353212 kB
> Dirty:           1228056 kB
> Writeback:        348024 kB

And very little of it is dirty, so it should all be immediately
reclaimable or compactable.

> Slab:           79729144 kB
> SReclaimable:   79040008 kB

80GB of slab caches as well - what is the output of /proc/slabinfo?

> We have three hardware raid'ed disks with XFS on them, one of which receives
> the bulk of the load. This is a raid 50 volume on SSDs with the raid 
> controller
> running in writethrough mode.

It doesn't seem like writeback of dirty pages is the problem; more
the case that the page cache is rediculously huge and not being
reclaimed in a sane manner. Do you really need 2.8TB of cached file
data in memory for performance?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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