lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.1.125 Show stopper list: Draft
    On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > >On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
    > >
    > >> 2.1.10x swap deadlock
    > >> 2.1.10x can seize up looping through swap_out_vma, shrink_mmap
    > >> and get_swap_page.
    >
    > >It includes both Andrea's patch, my patch and a few checks
    > >to see if we're really out of memory.
    >
    > When __get_free_pages() return 0 we must know that we are OOM.

    Unfortunately, we don't. That's why I propose including
    my check for out_of_memory().
    The OOM killer part can be included later on, probably
    as an optional feature (I know people want this, quite
    a lot of sysadmins have asked me when it would be put
    into the main kernel).

    > If we are not OOM and __get_free_pages() return 0, it means that
    > it's buggy (at least in _not_ GFP_ATOMIC context).

    It can also mean something else, but I think I've explained
    this over a dozen times already so I won't waste your time
    again...

    > The point is that an OOM killer could be _eventually_ a config
    > option for 2.2 and it' s a new _feature_ (I don' t go in the details
    > if it' s something we want or not in 2.2 here).

    I don't think we want it included now, but when 2.2
    stabilizes we might want to put it in after all.

    > >The only problem is that my patch still needs some cleaning
    > >up and I have a math test this friday ;(
    >
    > I know what does it mean ;-).

    Well, my patch seems to work for everybody now. I need to
    start working on things like code beautification, sysctl
    support and statistics reporting.

    > Rik I 100% agree that an OOM killer can be useful, but here I am
    > pointing out that this is a totoally different issue.

    Not really, with your patch there's a slightly increased
    chance of killing a random process when there's still some
    swap free. My patch removes the randomness _and_ the unneeded
    killing.

    Rik.
    +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
    | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
    +-------------------------------------------------------------------+


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:4.156 / U:0.100 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site