Re: Cache not being reclaimed?

Previous thread: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario? by Zhang, Yanmin on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - 8:46 pm. (21 messages)

Next thread: [ANNOUNCE] Lguest64 - fatter puppies! by Steven Rostedt on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - 10:06 pm. (3 messages)
To: <Linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - 9:28 pm

Hi,=20

I have just had a quite unexpected 'low memory situation'...

This is a AMD64 machine with 2 gig memory, running 64 bit userland.

Kernel: 2.6.23-rc3-git10, updating to -rc5-* as soon as i can.
I'm using SLUB:s

To me, this looks odd... I thought that any cached memory would be
reclamed but it was always full.

Ideas?

One example from dmesg:
swapper: page allocation failure. order:1, mode:0x4020

Call Trace:
<IRQ> [<ffffffff8026c7ef>] __alloc_pages+0x30f/0x330
[<ffffffff8028a0a1>] __slab_alloc+0x141/0x590
[<ffffffff805a5937>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x17/0x40
[<ffffffff805a5937>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x17/0x40
[<ffffffff8028b470>] __kmalloc_track_caller+0xa0/0xc0
[<ffffffff805a4b3f>] __alloc_skb+0x6f/0x150
[<ffffffff805a5937>] __netdev_alloc_skb+0x17/0x40
[<ffffffff88010945>] :sky2:sky2_rx_alloc+0x25/0xf0
[<ffffffff88013b0c>] :sky2:sky2_poll+0x6dc/0xcf0
[<ffffffff805e5f60>] tcp_delack_timer+0x0/0x210
[<ffffffff805ac38a>] net_rx_action+0x8a/0x140
[<ffffffff80242ac9>] __do_softirq+0x69/0xe0
[<ffffffff8020cd9c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
[<ffffffff8020eb75>] do_softirq+0x35/0x90
[<ffffffff8020ede0>] do_IRQ+0x80/0x100
[<ffffffff8020ad00>] default_idle+0x0/0x40
[<ffffffff8020c121>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa
<EOI> [<ffffffff8020ad29>] default_idle+0x29/0x40
[<ffffffff8020ade1>] cpu_idle+0xa1/0xf0

Mem-info:
DMA per-cpu:
CPU 0: Hot: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 Cold: hi: 0, btch: 1
usd: 0
CPU 1: Hot: hi: 0, btch: 1 usd: 0 Cold: hi: 0, btch: 1
usd: 0
DMA32 per-cpu:
CPU 0: Hot: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 163 Cold: hi: 62, btch: 15
usd: 56
CPU 1: Hot: hi: 186, btch: 31 usd: 33 Cold: hi: 62, btch: 15
usd: 60
Active:348343 inactive:122950 dirty:13504 writeback:0 unstable:0
free:2665 slab:21427 mapped:243884 pagetables:4816 bounce:0
DMA free:8020kB min:20kB low:24kB high:28kB active:1...

To: <pomac@...>
Cc: <Linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - 8:45 am

An order-1 GFP_ATOMIC allocation can fail, and networking should recover
from it.

If this is happening a lot then someting might have been broken. Do you
have reason to believe that the frequency of this happening has inreased?
-

To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Cc: <Linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - 9:01 am

Well, this isn't only networking, It started with all the apps running
and ended up with a pretty basic desktop with almost nothing running...
(due to continued freezes that caused me to shut down more and more

I have never, to my knowledge, had this happen before...=20

I just happened to start a few downloads with rtorrent and watched the
machine slow down to a crawl... All this with over a gig in cache.

The machine was actually deadlocked for almost a minute at one time.

Top memory usage:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND =
=20
2395 pomac 20 0 440m 289m 238m S 2 14.4 32:56.54 rtorrent
21647 root 20 0 203m 120m 10m S 1 6.0 569:45.31 X =
=20
2351 pomac 20 0 170m 111m 53m S 0 5.5 15:43.66 rtorrent =
=20

At peak time, one of the rtorrent processes consumed more, but i still
had 1.x gig as cache, which imho should have been reclaimed.

vmstat now:
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu--=
--
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id =
wa
0 0 365204 16628 30644 1445316 2 1 362 92 18 21 4 2 91=
3

PS. I have a dmesg dump from the incident, it's not long enough to
contain all but it could be seen as a snapshot...
DS.

--=20
Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net

Previous thread: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario? by Zhang, Yanmin on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - 8:46 pm. (21 messages)

Next thread: [ANNOUNCE] Lguest64 - fatter puppies! by Steven Rostedt on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - 10:06 pm. (3 messages)