Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:50:23 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: VM Problems in 2.6.7 (Too active OOM Killer) |
| |
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 05:17:01AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > this is a well known 2.6 oom-killer problem w/o swap. Not the worst one, > I mentioned the worst one here just a few weeks ago: > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1518647992d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=fa.i50b3kk.p0qsjs%40ifi.uio.no > the only fix at the moment is to use 2.4 with oom killer disabled (the > same issue could happen with 2.4 too). even if it would work better than > the above the oom killer will still get screwed by mlock and it simply > cannot know how much lowmem is freeable leading to deadlock instead of > -ENOMEM with syscalls if you fill the whole lowmem zone. > I fixed everything related to oom in 2.4 some year back, now need to > port to 2.6. > workaround is to add swap in 2.6, but in some condition it'll still > underpeform compared to 2.4 due the lack of the zone-reserve-ratio algo.
Can we try to get a bit more specific? I suspect the reason this stuff isn't getting much traction is because it's too broad to correlate to internal kernel problems or the userspace cases that trigger them. I think once we get that kind of documentation/changelogging we should be able to get the pieces in.
-- wli - 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/
| |