lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: OOM problems with 2.6.11-rc4
    On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:04:35AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > + if (!reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab &&
    > > + zone->pages_scanned >= (zone->nr_active +
    > > + zone->nr_inactive) * 4)
    > > zone->all_unreclaimable = 1;
    >
    > That might not change anything because we clear ->all_unreclaimable in
    > free_page_bulk(). [..]

    Really? free_page_bulk is called inside shrink_slab, and so it's overwritten
    later by all_unreclaimable. Otherwise how could all_unreclaimable be set
    in the first place if a single page freed by shrink_slab would be enough
    to clear it?

    shrink_slab
    all_unreclaimable = 0
    zone->pages_scanned >= (zone->nr_active [..]
    all_unreclaimable = 1

    try_to_free_pages
    all_unreclaimable == 1
    oom

    I also considering changing shrink_slab to return a progress retval, but
    then I noticed I could get away with a one liner fix ;).

    Your fix is better but it should be mostly equivalent in pratcie. I
    liked the dontrylock not risking to go oom, the one liner couldn't
    handle that ;).

    thanks!
    -
    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 14:11    [W:0.021 / U:31.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site