lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: oom kill oddness.
    On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 05:17:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:03:16 +0200 (CEST)
    > Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Dave Jones wrote:
    > >
    > > > So I have two boxes that are very similar.
    > > > Both have 2GB of RAM & 1GB of swap space.
    > > > One has a 2.8GHz CPU, the other a 2.93GHz CPU, both dualcore.
    > > >
    > > > The slower box survives a 'make -j bzImage' of a 2.6.18 kernel tree
    > > > without incident. (Although it takes ~4 minutes longer than a -j2)
    > > >
    > > > The faster box goes absolutely nuts, oomkilling everything in sight,
    > > > until eventually after about 10 minutes, the box locks up dead,
    > > > and won't even respond to pings.
    > > >
    > > > Oh, the only other difference - the slower box has 1 disk, whereas the
    > > > faster box has two in RAID0. I'm not surprised that stuff is getting
    > > > oom-killed given the pathological scenario, but the fact that the
    > > > box never recovered at all is a little odd. Does md lack some means
    > > > of dealing with low memory scenarios ?
    > >
    > > I think I see the same thing on the other end on slow machines, here it
    > > only takes a single compile job, which doesn't quite fit into memory and
    > > another task (like top) which occasionally wakes up and tries to allocate
    > > memory and then kills the compile job - that's very annoying.
    > >
    > > AFAICT the basic problem is that "did_some_progress" in __alloc_pages() is
    > > rather local information, other processes can still make progress and keep
    > > this process from making progress, which gets grumpy and starts killing.
    > > What's happing here is that most memory is either mapped or in the swap
    > > cache, so we have a race between processes trying to free memory from the
    > > cache and processes mapping memory back into their address space.
    >
    > Kernel versions please, guys. There have been a lot of oom-killer changes
    > post-2.6.18.

    Sorry, I've been stuck on 2.6.18 as that's what we're shipping in FC6 soon.

    Dave
    -
    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: 2006-09-29 02:25    [W:0.024 / U:90.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site