[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix spurious OOM kills
    On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 12:37:40AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:52:21PM +0100, Chris Ross wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > Chris Ross escreveu:
    > > >It seems good.
    > >
    > > Sorry Marcelo, I spoke to soon. The oom killer still goes haywire even
    > > with your new patch. I even got this one whilst the machine was booting!
    > On monday I'll make a patch to place the oom killer at the right place.
    > Marcelo's argument that kswapd is a localized place isn't sound to me,
    > kswapd is still racing against all other task contexts, so if the task
    > context isn't reliable, there's no reason why kswapd should be more
    > reliable than the task context. the trick is to check the _right_
    > watermarks before invoking the oom killer, it's not about racing against
    > each other, 2.6 is buggy in not checking the watermarks. Moving the oom
    > killer in kswapd can only make thing worse, fix is simple, and it's the
    > opposite thing: move the oom killer up the stack outside vmscan.c.

    Its hard to detect OOM situation with zone->all_unreclaimable logic.

    Well, I'll wait for your correct and definitive approach.

    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 14:08    [W:0.020 / U:26.752 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site