[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-662?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13754346#comment-13754346
]
Vinod Kone commented on MESOS-662:
----------------------------------
Thanks Eric for the explanation!
So how about we let the kernel do the oom killing and just delay the call to
killExecutor() on reaped() instead of calling it right away? I'm guessing a
delay of 1 sec should be enough for the kernel to signal us the OOM? AFAICT
this should work irrespective of whether the executor was the process that was
oom killed by the kernel. Of course the down side is that there is a 1s delay
in reporting a terminated executor to the slave/master, but I think its
acceptable?
> Executor OOM could lead to a kernel hang
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: MESOS-662
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-662
> Project: Mesos
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Vinod Kone
> Assignee: Benjamin Mahler
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 0.15.0
>
>
> We observed this in production at Twitter.
> An executor OOMed and kernel put it in sleep instead of killing it because
> Mesos slave disable OOM kills. Mesos disables the kernel OOM so that it can
> take some action. The currently the only action it does is cleaning up the
> cgroup. But in the future, the action could be to increase the memory limit.
> [6290807.554028] SysRq : Show Blocked State
> [6290807.554175] task PC stack pid father
> [6290807.554251] python2.6 D ffff88097b1c3158 0 31039 1
> 0x00000000
> [6290807.554255] ffff88120ae19b48 0000000000000082 0000000000000000
> ffff88093ffffa08
> [6290807.554259] ffff88093fffed00 ffff88120ae18010 0000000000013300
> 0000000000013300
> [6290807.554263] 0000000000013300 ffff88120ae19fd8 0000000000013300
> 0000000000013300
> [6290807.554267] Call Trace:
> [6290807.554279] [<ffffffff814dfabd>] schedule+0x64/0x66
> [6290807.554285] [<ffffffff8113ad09>] mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0x132/0x21f
> [6290807.554289] [<ffffffff81138e62>] ? mem_cgroup_update_tree+0x165/0x165
> [6290807.554292] [<ffffffff8113aef5>] mem_cgroup_do_charge+0xff/0x124
> [6290807.554295] [<ffffffff8113b0ce>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x1b4/0x298
> [6290807.554298] [<ffffffff8113b643>] mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x6a/0x91
> [6290807.554301] [<ffffffff8113b72f>] mem_cgroup_newpage_charge+0x23/0x25
> [6290807.554307] [<ffffffff8110c26e>] do_anonymous_page+0x169/0x29a
> [6290807.554311] [<ffffffff81110137>] handle_pte_fault+0x8d/0x1b1
> [6290807.554315] [<ffffffff8110a793>] ?
> anon_vma_interval_tree_insert+0x8a/0x8c
> [6290807.554319] [<ffffffff81113afe>] ? vma_adjust+0x50f/0x5b9
> [6290807.554324] [<ffffffff811a196d>] ? ext3_dx_readdir+0x181/0x1d7
> [6290807.554327] [<ffffffff81110489>] handle_mm_fault+0x22e/0x248
> [6290807.554332] [<ffffffff814e3c6a>] do_page_fault+0x367/0x3ae
> [6290807.554335] [<ffffffff811149f4>] ? do_brk+0x291/0x2f2
> [6290807.554339] [<ffffffff81141289>] ? __fput+0x1e7/0x1f6
> [6290807.554342] [<ffffffff814e0ba5>] page_fault+0x25/0x30
> A short term solution is to enable kernel OOM kill in cgroups (until we get
> around to adding support for soft memory limits in the cgroups isolator). The
> slave should still get a OOM notification and properly inform the frameworks
> of the OOM. One concern is that we don't know if kernel handling OOM would
> cause problems with cgroups cleanup done by the slave.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
