Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Jul 2009 12:25:54 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: Found the commit that causes the OOMs |
| |
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 01:18:39PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:57:02PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > >>> [ 1522.019259] Active_anon:11 active_file:6 inactive_anon:0 > > >>> [ 1522.019260] inactive_file:0 unevictable:0 dirty:0 writeback:0 unstable:0 > > >>> [ 1522.019261] free:1985 slab:44399 mapped:132 pagetables:61830 bounce:0 > > >>> [ 1522.019262] isolate:69817 > > >> > > >> OK. thanks. > > >> I plan to submit this patch after small more tests. it is useful for OOM analysis. > > > > > > It is also useful for throttling page reclaim. > > > > > > If more than half of the inactive pages in a zone are > > > isolated, we are probably beyond the point where adding > > > additional reclaim processes will do more harm than good. > > > > There are probably more problems in this case. For example, > > followed is the vmstat after first (successful) run of msgctl11. > > > > The question is: Why kswapd reclaims are absent here? > > if direct reclaim isolate all pages, kswapd can't reclaim any pages.
OOM will occur in that condition. What happened before that time?
> I believe Rik's idea solve this problem.
Me too :)
Thanks, Fengguang
| |