lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Memory management in Kernel 2.4.x
    Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 03:45:55PM +0200, Peter Wächtler wrote:
    >
    >>Andreas Hartmann wrote:
    >>
    >>>Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Mon, 27 May 2002, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>rsync allocates all of the memory the machine has (256 MB RAM, 128 MB
    >>>>>swap). When this occures, processes get killed like described in the
    >>>>>posting before. The machine doesn't respond as long as the rsync -
    >>>>>process isn't killed, because it fetches all the memory which gets free
    >>>>>after a process has been killed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>And the rsync process never gets singled out? nice!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>Until it's killed by the kernel (if overcommitment isn't deactivated). If
    >>>overcommitment is deactivated, the services of the machine are dead
    >>>forever. There will be nothing, which kills such a process. Or am I wrong?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>There is still the oom killer (Out Of Memory).
    >>But it doesn't trigger and the machine pages "forever".
    >>Usually kswapd eats the CPU then, discarding and reloading pages,
    >>searching lists for pages to evict and so on.
    >>
    >
    > can you reproduce with 2.4.19pre9aa2? I expect at least the deadlock
    > (if it's a deadlock and not a livelock) should go away.
    >
    > Also I read in another email that somebody grown the per-socket buffer
    > to hundred mbytes, if you do that on a 32bit arch with highmem you'll
    > run into troubles, too much ZONE_NORMAL ram will be constantly pinned
    > for the tcp pipeline and the machine can enter livelocks.
    >

    Sorry for the confusion.
    I was just trying to explain that without overcommitment there would be
    the "normal" OOM handling. But I don't know this feature from the -ac
    kernels. Am I wrong?

    It's Andreas who has the problem with rsync being killed and the machine
    seems to hang.
    But I still think that the buffer cache has to be better restricted.
    The vm is caching far too aggressively (but I never tried with -aa)

    -
    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 13:26    [W:0.026 / U:63.676 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site