![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote: > > @@ -217,9 +217,9 @@ void out_of_memory(void) > unsigned long now, since; > > /* > - * Enough swap space left? Not OOM. > + * Enough swap space and ZONE_NORMAL left? Not OOM. > */ > - if (nr_swap_pages > 0) > + if (nr_swap_pages > 0 && nr_free_buffer_pages() + nr_used_low_pages() > 0) > return; a) if someone is trying to allocate some ZONE_DMA pages and there are still swappable or free ZONE_NORMAL pages, nobody gets killed. b) If there are free ZONE_NORMAL pages then why on earth did we call out_of_memory()? Does nr_free_buffer_pages() ever return non-zero in here? It will do so for a ZONE_DMA allocation, but you're not doing them... Generally, I'm thinking that this test should just be removed. It is the responsibility of try_to_free_pages() to work out whether the allocation can succeed. If try_to_free_pages() calls out_of_memory() when there are still swappable, reclaimable or free pages in the relevant zones then try_to_free_pages() goofed, and needs mending. out_of_memory() shouldn't be cleaning up after try_to_free_pages()'s mistakes. I have a bad feeling that it _will_ goof. A long time ago I looked at the amount of scanning we're doing in there and decided that it was way overkill and reduced it by a lot. I may have gone overboard. So how's about I and thy take that test out, see how things get along? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:46 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||