> From: Jason Evans [mailto:jas...@canonware.com] > On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Paul Marquess <paul.marqu...@owmobility.com> > wrote: > >> From: Jason Evans [mailto:jas...@canonware.com] > >> > >> On Aug 18, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Paul Marquess <paul.marqu...@owmobility.com> > >> wrote: > >>> I see a reference to a fix for arena_tcache_fill_small and corruption in > >>> the 4.0 ChangeLog. Any chance it could be the root cause for this issue? > >> > >> It's possible, but the failure mode for that bug depends on failing to map > >> memory (i.e. extreme memory pressure). > > > > do you mean a failure in the call to mmap? Assume that isn't necessarily > > catastrophic (otherwise I assume you would assert straight away). > > Yes, mmap() and sbrk() failure. It should simply result in malloc() > returning NULL, but the arena_tcache_fill_small bug you mentioned caused > corruption that would later cause crashes.
Guess we need to wrap jemalloc's malloc and get it to assert when it gets a null. Perhaps get a dump of jemallocs state -- would the stats interface in jemalloc will still be operational if we are OOM? Alternative is to get the stats from the core -- I see there are a couple of core file postmortem scripts for jemalloc knocking about, but none seem to support 3.6. Something else has occurred to me - we had a problem with THP and uninterruptable sleep (~30 seconds) very recently that was fixed by tuning the swappiness parameter. When researching that I spotted a number of threads that suggested that the combination of THP and jemalloc can result in memory growth. This thread is an example https://www.digitalocean.com/company/blog/transparent-huge-pages-and-alternative-memory-allocators/ . I know it's too much of a stretch to suggest that this is the root cause of the OOM, but if it does cause memory growth it won't help. Do you have any feeling whether it is safe to have jemalloc and THP at the same time? > > Is there anything in jemalloc (or other tools) I can do to root cause why > > that is happening? > > Valgrind is great. Indeed it is, and it is a tool we make frequent use of. Problem is its waaaay to slow. The issue only happens on our live server. We've attempted to trigger the issue with a load test, but it has never happened. > There's ASAN (address sanitizer) as well. Yep, we've started using that recently. It's found a number of issues for us. Very nice it is too. > jemalloc with --enable-debug and MALLOC_CONF=tcache:false can catch quite a > few issues as well. I've just dipped my toe into jemalloc's debug features. Need to research that some more. cheers Paul _______________________________________________ jemalloc-discuss mailing list jemalloc-discuss@canonware.com http://www.canonware.com/mailman/listinfo/jemalloc-discuss
