[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable braindamage
    On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 01:46:27PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > Andrew Morton wrote:
    > >Nick Piggin <> 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.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > Oh yeah, there definitely seems to be OOM problems as well (although
    > luckily not _too_ many people seem to be complaining).
    > I thought Marcelo was talking about increased incidents of people
    > reporting eg. order-0 atomic allocation failures though, after the
    > recentish code from you and I to fix up alloc_pages.

    Yes that is what I'm talking about - it should be happening.

    The amount of reports is _too high_. I can at least one report
    of 0-order page allocation failure a day.
    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 14:07    [W:0.022 / U:42.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site