lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 1gb RAM + 1gb SWAP + make -j bzImage = OOM
No troubles to reproduce this here, on sparc64 !GM ran/1GB swap,
and on dualathlon 768MB RAM 1.5GB swap, and on athlon 1GBRAM/1GBSWAP

But this is not a kernel issue, it is simply that
too many gcc processes are runned at the same time because the source
files are too many.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Nicholas Knight wrote:

> On Friday 04 January 2002 01:02 pm, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:32:27 -0800
> >
> > "Phil Oester" <kernel@theoesters.com> wrote:
> > > On 2.4.17, I can't make -j bzImage without OOM kicking in.
> > > Relatively light .config here - bzImage compiles to less than 1mb.
> > >
> > > Seems with 1 gb of RAM and swap, the box should be able to handle
> > > this (box is dual P3 600 btw).
> > >
> > > Is this unreasonable? How much RAM should it take to accomplish
> > > this???
> >
> > You should give a bit more info on that, especially vmstat and the
> > like. I cannot reproduce this. Neither on 1GB/256MB nor on 2GB/256MB
> > RAM/SWAP. (P3-1GHz, dual SMP, 2.4.17)
> >
>
>
> I have absilutely no trouble reproducing on an 800MHz Athlon with 256MB
> RAM/256MB swap on 2.4.17
>
> The one catch is that -j is specified without a number.
>
> from man make:
> -j jobs
> Specifies the number of jobs (commands) to run
> simultaneously. If there is more than one -j
> option, the last one is effective.
> **If the -j option is given without an argument, make will not limit
> the number of jobs that can run simultaneously.**
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
> Hence, unlimited number of jobs, theoreticaly unlimited amount of
> memory usage.
> The last number of processes I saw in top before the system was
> basically dead and I just hit A-SYSRQ-S and A-SYSRQ-B was 416, and all
> the top processes were make or cc
>
> Somehow I doubt this is a kernel issue and is instead a make and user
> issue. A make issue because it's probably poor design to have an option
> that's specified with a number be normaly harmless and useful, be
> potentialy lethal when the number is left off, so if you forget the
> number, your system is dead. A user issue because it seems the user is
> using the option without fully comprehending the consequences.
>
> > Regards,
> > Stephan
> >
> -
> 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/
>

-
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 13:15    [W:0.159 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site