[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.5.73-mm2
William Lee Irwin III <> wrote:
> @@ -217,9 +217,9 @@ void out_of_memory(void)
> unsigned long now, since;
> /*
> - * Enough swap space left? Not OOM.
> + * Enough swap space and ZONE_NORMAL left? Not OOM.
> */
> - if (nr_swap_pages > 0)
> + if (nr_swap_pages > 0 && nr_free_buffer_pages() + nr_used_low_pages() > 0)
> return;

a) if someone is trying to allocate some ZONE_DMA pages and there are
still swappable or free ZONE_NORMAL pages, nobody gets killed.

b) If there are free ZONE_NORMAL pages then why on earth did we call
out_of_memory()? Does nr_free_buffer_pages() ever return non-zero in
here? It will do so for a ZONE_DMA allocation, but you're not doing

Generally, I'm thinking that this test should just be removed. It is
the responsibility of try_to_free_pages() to work out whether the
allocation can succeed.

If try_to_free_pages() calls out_of_memory() when there are still
swappable, reclaimable or free pages in the relevant zones then
try_to_free_pages() goofed, and needs mending. out_of_memory()
shouldn't be cleaning up after try_to_free_pages()'s mistakes.

I have a bad feeling that it _will_ goof. A long time ago I looked
at the amount of scanning we're doing in there and decided that it
was way overkill and reduced it by a lot. I may have gone overboard.

So how's about I and thy take that test out, see how things get along?

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 13:46    [W:0.056 / U:1.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site