lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable braindamage


Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 06:35:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>>Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure... it could also be just be a fluke
>>> due to chaotic effects in the mm, I suppose :|
>>>
>>2.6 scans less than 2.4 before declaring oom. I looked at the 2.4
>>implementation and thought "whoa, that's crazy - let's reduce it and see
>>who complains". My three-year-old memory tells me it was reduced by 2x to
>>3x.
>>
>>We need to find testcases (dammit) and do the analysis. It could be that
>>we're simply not scanning far enough.
>>
>
>Andrew,
>
>When reading the code I was really suspicious of the all_unreclaimable code.
>It basically stops scanning when reaching OOM conditions - that might be it.
>
>

Yeah, I saw a pretty good correlation between OOM killing and
all_unreclaimable.

We've got some code to spit that out during an OOM kill now, so that
might be
helpful.

>I tried to disable it (ignore it if priority==0) - result: very slow progress
>on extreme load.
>
>

I had a patch that caused try_to_free_pages to ignore all_unreclaimable and
go 'round the loop again if we reached oom-kill conditions. Basically that
guarantees you'll scan ~ pages_present*2 before going OOM. I think it may
be a good thing to do, but I wasn't really able to reproduce these early
OOM killings.

-
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 14:07    [W:1.054 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site