Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel 3.11 / 3.12 OOM killer and Xen ballooning

[Bob Liu <bob.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/12/2013 12:30 AM, James Dingwall wrote:
> Bob Liu wrote:
>> On 12/10/2013 11:27 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 02:52:40PM +0000, James Dingwall wrote:
>>>> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 05:50:29PM +0000, James Dingwall wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since 3.11 I have noticed that the OOM killer quite frequently
>>>>>> triggers in my Xen guest domains which use ballooning to
>>>>>> increase/decrease their memory allocation according to their
>>>>>> requirements.  One example domain I have has a maximum memory
>>>>>> setting of ~1.5Gb but it usually idles at ~300Mb, it is also
>>>>>> configured with 2Gb swap which is almost 100% free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # free
>>>>>>               total       used       free     shared    buffers
>>>>>> cached
>>>>>> Mem:        272080     248108      23972          0 1448      63064
>>>>>> -/+ buffers/cache:     183596      88484
>>>>>> Swap:      2097148          8    2097140
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is plenty of available free memory in the hypervisor to
>>>>>> balloon to the maximum size:
>>>>>> # xl info | grep free_mem
>>>>>> free_memory            : 14923
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An example trace (they are always the same) from the oom killer in
>>>>>> 3.12 is added below.  So far I have not been able to reproduce this
>>>>>> at will so it is difficult to start bisecting it to see if a
>>>>>> particular change introduced this.  However it does seem that the
>>>>>> behaviour is wrong because a) ballooning could give the guest more
>>>>>> memory, b) there is lots of swap available which could be used as a
>>>>>> fallback.
>>> Keep in mind that swap with tmem is actually no more swap. Heh, that
>>> sounds odd -but basically pages that are destined for swap end up
>>> going in the tmem code which pipes them up to the hypervisor.
>>>
>>>>>> If other information could help or there are more tests that I could
>>>>>> run then please let me know.
>>>>> I presume you have enabled 'tmem' both in the hypervisor and in
>>>>> the guest right?
>>>> Yes, domU and dom0 both have the tmem module loaded and  tmem
>>>> tmem_dedup=on tmem_compress=on is given on the xen command line.
>>> Excellent. The odd thing is that your swap is not used that much, but
>>> it should be (as that is part of what the self-balloon is suppose to
>>> do).
>>>
>>> Bob, you had a patch for the logic of how self-balloon is suppose
>>> to account for the slab - would this be relevant to this problem?
>>>
>> Perhaps, I have attached the patch.
>> James, could you please apply it and try your application again? You
>> have to rebuild the guest kernel.
>> Oh, and also take a look at whether frontswap is in use, you can check
>> it by watching "cat /sys/kernel/debug/frontswap/*".
> I have tested this patch with a workload where I have previously seen

Thank you so much.

> failures and so far so good.  I'll try to keep a guest with it stressed
> to see if I do get any problems.  I don't know if it is expected but I
> did note that the system running with this patch + selfshrink has a
> kswapd0 run time of ~30mins.  A guest without it and selfshrink disabled

Could you run the test again with this patch but selfshrink disabled and
compare the run time of kswapd0?

> having run a similar workload has ~5mins. With the patch I also noted
> the following kernel messages which I haven't seen before:
> 
> [ 8733.646820] init_memory_mapping: [mem 0x120000000-0x127ffffff]
> [ 8733.646825]  [mem 0x120000000-0x127ffffff] page 4k
> [10506.639875] init_memory_mapping: [mem 0x128000000-0x137ffffff]
> [10506.639881]  [mem 0x128000000-0x137ffffff] page 4k
> 

-- 
Regards,
-Bob

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel