[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: pre4 oom too soon

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Note that a full kswapd_balance_pgdat() is going to scan only a small
> portion of the lists. I'm pretty sure we have to guarantee kswapd
> scanned at least all lists (maybe scanned all lists twice), before
> checking for OOM.

Why not just say "if we have swap cache pages, we aren't oom".

If we've scanned all lists twice, we should have unmapped all users of
swap-cache pages, and we should have dropped them.

And make the test be not quite black-and-white: we're almost always going
to have a _few_ swap-cache pages around under heavy memory load, if only
because of read-ahead etc that pins the pages. But if the swap cache is a
noticeable fraction of memory, we're obviously not oom _regardless_ of
what the VM balancers say.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [W:0.049 / U:1.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site