Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:06:51 -0200 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: Mem issues in 2.6.9 (ever since 2.6.9-rc3) and possible cause |
| |
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 06:33:35PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > - if (referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page)) > > > > + if (referenced && sc->priority && page_mapping_inuse(page)) > > > > > > Makes heaps of sense, but I'd like to exactly understand why people are > > > getting oomings before doing something like this. I think we're still > > > waiting for a testcase? > > > > I'm now running Yum on a (virtual) system with 96MB RAM and > > 100MB swap. This used to get an OOM kill very quickly, but > > still seems to be running now, after 20 minutes. > > It completed, without being OOM killed like before.
Barry,
Can you please test Rik's patch with your spurious OOM kill testcase?
===== mm/vmscan.c 1.231 vs edited ===== --- 1.231/mm/vmscan.c Sun Oct 17 01:07:24 2004 +++ edited/mm/vmscan.c Mon Oct 25 17:38:56 2004 @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ referenced = page_referenced(page, 1); /* In active use or really unfreeable? Activate it. */ - if (referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page)) + if (referenced && sc->priority && page_mapping_inuse(page)) goto activate_locked; #ifdef CONFIG_SWAP @@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ if (page_mapped(page)) { if (!reclaim_mapped || (total_swap_pages == 0 && PageAnon(page)) || - page_referenced(page, 0)) { + (page_referenced(page, 0) && sc->priority)) { list_add(&page->lru, &l_active); continue; } - 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/
| |