[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:0.087 / U:7.004 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site