Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Nov 2004 05:18:44 -0200 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable braindamage |
| |
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 01:46:27PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > >Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote: > > > >>I'm not sure... it could also be just be a fluke > >>due to chaotic effects in the mm, I suppose :| > >> > > > >2.6 scans less than 2.4 before declaring oom. I looked at the 2.4 > >implementation and thought "whoa, that's crazy - let's reduce it and see > >who complains". My three-year-old memory tells me it was reduced by 2x to > >3x. > > > >We need to find testcases (dammit) and do the analysis. It could be that > >we're simply not scanning far enough. > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, there definitely seems to be OOM problems as well (although > luckily not _too_ many people seem to be complaining). > > I thought Marcelo was talking about increased incidents of people > reporting eg. order-0 atomic allocation failures though, after the > recentish code from you and I to fix up alloc_pages.
Yes that is what I'm talking about - it should be happening.
The amount of reports is _too high_. I can at least one report of 0-order page allocation failure a day. - 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/
| |