Bug 172991
Summary: | [bisected] SLUB: over 2000 kworker threads | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Memory Management | Reporter: | Doug Smythies (dsmythies) |
Component: | Slab Allocator | Assignee: | Andrew Morton (akpm) |
Status: | RESOLVED CODE_FIX | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | kernelorg, lee295012 |
Priority: | P1 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Kernel Version: | 4.7+ | Subsystem: | |
Regression: | No | Bisected commit-id: | |
Attachments: | Just a script I use to manually create the issue |
Description
Doug Smythies
2016-09-27 18:03:52 UTC
Created attachment 239841 [details]
Just a script I use to manually create the issue
This is quite a viscous script. I haven't found a simpler way to manually create the issue.
As best as I am able to test, the proposed 2 patch set: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9361853 https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9359271 resolves this bug report. Just noticed this same issue when playing with an openSUSE host using mainline kernel 4.8.5, SLAB allocator, and memory cgroup enabled. The trigger for me, was using a pretty simple "systemd-nspawn -D /some/container --boot". That creates about 2000 kworker threads, driving the load to over 100, If I boot with cgroup_disable=memory, the issue does not occur. In production where I've been running 4.8.5 for a day on some hosts and VMs without memory cgroup controller, I also did not observe the symptoms. (In reply to Patrick Schaaf from comment #3) > > The trigger for me, was using a pretty simple "systemd-nspawn -D > /some/container --boot". That creates about 2000 kworker threads, driving > the load to over 100, Slightly more correct: just starting the container that way does not already trigger the issue. Logging in in the container does. @Patrick: I tried your "cgroup_disable=memory" suggestion, but the issue still occurs for me, perhaps somewhat reduced. (kernel 4.9-rc4). You mentioned "SLAB", which is covered in bug 172981, and fixed as of kernel 4.9-rc3 (I think). Does anybody know why the 2 patch set referenced above has not yet been included? (In reply to Doug Smythies from comment #5) > @Patrick: I tried your "cgroup_disable=memory" suggestion, but the issue > still occurs for me, perhaps somewhat reduced. (kernel 4.9-rc4). @Patrick: I made a stupid mistake. Your "ipv6.disable=1" suggestion does work for me. (In reply to Doug Smythies from comment #6) > @Patrick: I made a stupid mistake. Your "ipv6.disable=1" suggestion does > work for me. I meant to write "cgroup_disable=memory" above I originally posted this bug report as a regression and bisected. While a fix only took a few days, it has yet to be included (as of 4.9-rc6). I ask again: Does anybody know why the 2 patch set referenced above has not yet been included? kernel 4.10-rc1 contains the above mentioned two patches. I tested it, and the problem is resolved. |