mirror of https://gitee.com/openkylin/linux.git
4 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
Michal Hocko
|
65190cff3c |
oom, trace: add compaction retry tracepoint
Higher order requests oom debugging is currently quite hard. We do have
some compaction points which can tell us how the compaction is operating
but there is no trace point to tell us about compaction retry logic.
This patch adds a one which will have the following format
bash-3126 [001] .... 1498.220001: compact_retry: order=9 priority=COMPACT_PRIO_SYNC_LIGHT compaction_result=withdrawn retries=0 max_retries=16 should_retry=0
we can see that the order 9 request is not retried even though we are in
the highest compaction priority mode becase the last compaction attempt
was withdrawn. This means that compaction_zonelist_suitable must have
returned false and there is no suitable zone to compact for this request
and so no need to retry further.
another example would be
<...>-3137 [001] .... 81.501689: compact_retry: order=9 priority=COMPACT_PRIO_SYNC_LIGHT compaction_result=failed retries=0 max_retries=16 should_retry=0
in this case the order-9 compaction failed to find any suitable block.
We do not retry anymore because this is a costly request and those do
not go below COMPACT_PRIO_SYNC_LIGHT priority.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220130135.15719-4-mhocko@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
|
Michal Hocko
|
d379f01de0 |
oom, trace: add oom detection tracepoints
should_reclaim_retry is the central decision point for declaring the OOM. It might be really useful to expose data used for this decision making when debugging an unexpected oom situations. Say we have an OOM report: [ 52.264001] mem_eater invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x24280ca(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE|__GFP_ZERO), nodemask=0, order=0, oom_score_adj=0 [ 52.267549] CPU: 3 PID: 3148 Comm: mem_eater Tainted: G W 4.8.0-oomtrace3-00006-gb21338b386d2 #1024 Now we can check the tracepoint data to see how we have ended up in this situation: mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.432801: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA32 order=0 reclaimable=51 available=11134 min_wmark=11084 no_progress_loops=1 wmark_check=1 mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.433269: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA32 order=0 reclaimable=51 available=11103 min_wmark=11084 no_progress_loops=1 wmark_check=1 mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.433712: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA32 order=0 reclaimable=51 available=11100 min_wmark=11084 no_progress_loops=2 wmark_check=1 mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.434067: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA32 order=0 reclaimable=51 available=11097 min_wmark=11084 no_progress_loops=3 wmark_check=1 mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.434414: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA32 order=0 reclaimable=51 available=11094 min_wmark=11084 no_progress_loops=4 wmark_check=1 mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.434761: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA32 order=0 reclaimable=51 available=11091 min_wmark=11084 no_progress_loops=5 wmark_check=1 mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.435108: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA32 order=0 reclaimable=51 available=11087 min_wmark=11084 no_progress_loops=6 wmark_check=1 mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.435478: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA32 order=0 reclaimable=51 available=11084 min_wmark=11084 no_progress_loops=7 wmark_check=0 mem_eater-3148 [003] .... 52.435478: reclaim_retry_zone: node=0 zone=DMA order=0 reclaimable=0 available=1126 min_wmark=179 no_progress_loops=7 wmark_check=0 The above shows that we can quickly deduce that the reclaim stopped making any progress (see no_progress_loops increased in each round) and while there were still some 51 reclaimable pages they couldn't be dropped for some reason (vmscan trace points would tell us more about that part). available will represent reclaimable + free_pages scaled down per no_progress_loops factor. This is essentially an optimistic estimate of how much memory we would have when reclaiming everything. This can be compared to min_wmark to get a rought idea but the wmark_check tells the result of the watermark check which is more precise (includes lowmem reserves, considers the order etc.). As we can see no zone is eligible in the end and that is why we have triggered the oom in this situation. Please note that higher order requests might fail on the wmark_check even when there is much more memory available than min_wmark - e.g. when the memory is fragmented. A follow up tracepoint will help to debug those situations. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220130135.15719-3-mhocko@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|
|
David Rientjes
|
a9c58b907d |
mm, oom: change type of oom_score_adj to short
The maximum oom_score_adj is 1000 and the minimum oom_score_adj is -1000, so this range can be represented by the signed short type with no functional change. The extra space this frees up in struct signal_struct will be used for per-thread oom kill flags in the next patch. Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@linaro.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|
|
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
|
43d2b11324 |
tracepoint: add tracepoints for debugging oom_score_adj
oom_score_adj is used for guarding processes from OOM-Killer. One of problem is that it's inherited at fork(). When a daemon set oom_score_adj and make children, it's hard to know where the value is set. This patch adds some tracepoints useful for debugging. This patch adds 3 trace points. - creating new task - renaming a task (exec) - set oom_score_adj To debug, users need to enable some trace pointer. Maybe filtering is useful as # EVENT=/sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/task/ # echo "oom_score_adj != 0" > $EVENT/task_newtask/filter # echo "oom_score_adj != 0" > $EVENT/task_rename/filter # echo 1 > $EVENT/enable # EVENT=/sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/oom/ # echo 1 > $EVENT/enable output will be like this. # grep oom /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace bash-7699 [007] d..3 5140.744510: oom_score_adj_update: pid=7699 comm=bash oom_score_adj=-1000 bash-7699 [007] ...1 5151.818022: task_newtask: pid=7729 comm=bash clone_flags=1200011 oom_score_adj=-1000 ls-7729 [003] ...2 5151.818504: task_rename: pid=7729 oldcomm=bash newcomm=ls oom_score_adj=-1000 bash-7699 [002] ...1 5175.701468: task_newtask: pid=7730 comm=bash clone_flags=1200011 oom_score_adj=-1000 grep-7730 [007] ...2 5175.701993: task_rename: pid=7730 oldcomm=bash newcomm=grep oom_score_adj=-1000 Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |