Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:18:18 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [oom]: [0/4] fix OOM deadlock running OAST |
| |
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 04:38:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I don't think it _is_ relevant. Wev'e scanned the crap out of all the > > eligible zones, found nothing swappable outable or otherwise reclaimable. > > That's as good a definition of oom as you're likely to get. It takes care > > of mlocked user memory too. > > The actual net effect of all this is blowing away if (nr_swap_pages > 0) > for __GFP_WIRED allocations. Removing those 2 lines (and the one line of > whitespace next to it) will pass the test I observed failure in.
OK.
> It's a > judgment call as to whether it's beneficial in general, as it does > insulate userspace somewhat from needing to wait for slow IO being the > ostensible cause of the allocation failure.
mm... I can only see that happening if the IO system is retiring write requests at much less than 10/sec, which seems unlikely. Still, that can be tuned around.
> RedHat vendor kernels have removed the check entirely
When telling us this sort of thing, please always specify the kernel version.
I assume you're referring to a 2.6 kernel? If so, some thwapping might be in order. - 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/
| |