lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.077 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site