[LU-9372] OOM happens on OSS during Lustre recovery for more than 5000 clients

• Type: Bug
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Major
• Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.11.0, Lustre 2.10.6
• Labels: cea
• Environment: Server running with b2_7_fe; Clients are a mix of IEEL3 (RH7/SCS5), 2.5.3.90 (RH6/AE4), 2.7.3 (CentOS7)
• Severity: 3
• Assignee: Bruno Faccini (Inactive)
• Reporter: Bruno Faccini (Inactive)

Description

I have been on-site to work with Bruno Travouillon (Atos) on one of the crash-dumps they have.

After joint analysis, it looks like a huge memory part is being consumed by "ptlrpc_request_buffer_desc" (17KB size each due to the embedded req, and that have been allocated in 32KB Slabs to increase/double side effect!).

Having a look to the concerned source code, it looks like these "ptlrpc_request_buffer_desc" could be additionally allocated upon need by ptlrpc_check_rqbd_pool(), but will never be freed until OST umount/stop by ptlrpc_service_purge_all().

This problem has caused several OSS failovers to fail due to OOM.

Issue Links

• is duplicated by: LU-1099 Lustre OSS OOMs repeatedly
• is related to: LU-10603 ptlrpc_lprocfs_req_buffers_max_fops unused
• is related to: LU-13600 limit number of RPCs in flight during recovery
• is related to: LU-10803 req_buffers_max and req_history_max setting problems
• is related to: LU-10826 Regression in LU-9372 on OPA enviroment and no recovery triggered

Comments

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Both patches from LU-10803 and LU-10826 are also must-have/follow-ons to the LU-9372 serie.

[Gerrit Updater]

Wang Shilong ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/31622
Subject: LU-9372 ptlrpc: fix req_buffers_max and req_history_max setting
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: aa9005eb5c9e873e9e83619ff830ba848917f118

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

Master patch https://review.whamcloud.com/31162 from LU-10603 is required to make associated tunable visible to the external world and thus to allow this https://review.whamcloud.com/29064/ patch/feature to be usable.

So just in case, Minh, any back-port of #29064 requires also to back-port #31162.

[Gerrit Updater]

Minh Diep ([e-mail]) uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/31108
Subject: LU-9372 ptlrpc: allow to limit number of service's rqbds
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: b2_10
Current Patch Set: 1
Commit: 69ad99bf62cf461df93419e57adb323a6d537e31

[Peter Jones]

Landed for 2.11

[Gerrit Updater]

Oleg Drokin ([e-mail]) merged in patch https://review.whamcloud.com/29064/
Subject: LU-9372 ptlrpc: allow to limit number of service's rqbds
Project: fs/lustre-release
Branch: master
Current Patch Set:
Commit: d9e57a765e73e1bc3046124433eb6e2186f7e07c

[Bruno Travouillon (Inactive)]

We allocate 90 GB of RAM and 8 CPU cores to each OSS. We can't allocate more resources per virtual guest in a SFA14KXE. The cores are HT.
 

 oss# cat /proc/sys/lnet/cpu_partition_table
 0 : 0 1 2 3 
 1 : 4 5 6 7 
 2 : 8 9 10 11 
 3 : 12 13 14 15

Last time we hit OOM, the memory consumption of the OSS was at its maximum (90GB).

[Andreas Dilger]

I couldn’t find in the ticket how much RAM is on this OSS for the 20 OSTs? I’m wondering if we are also having problems here with CPT allocations all happening on one CPT and hitting OOM while there is plenty of RAM available on a second CPT?

[Bruno Faccini (Inactive)]

I was just talking about this problem, and I have found that I had never clearly indicated in this ticket that the reason of this 32k alloc for each ptlrpc_rqbd (for a real size of 17k) is due to patch for LU-4755 ("LU-4755 ptlrpc: enlarge OST_MAXREQSIZE for 4MB RPC").

Since the way this size has been identified looks a bit empiric, we may also want to give try to 15k (+ payload size, thus leading to 16k) in order to divide the real consumed size by 2.
To allow almost the same size reduction, we may also try to use a specific kmem_cache/Slabs for ptlrpc_rqbd/17k, keeping in mind that it may be made useless due to Kernel merging of Slabs.

[Andreas Dilger]

Bruno, my main concern is that a static tunable will not avoid a similar problem for most users.