Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: swapping and oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201d2, order=0 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Fri, 12 May 2006 07:48:30 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 15:14 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > The current mm behaviour in 2.6, during physical memory exhaustion, expresses > itself as an oom-killing spree, while the kernel could have resorted to > swapping. > > Is there a reason why oom-killing is currently preferred over swapping?
Looks to me like you booted with mem=8m, and these allocations are failing because every page the page allocator tried to issue were marked as being reserved. The SysRq-M output shows that it did try to swap as it limped along.
My box won't get past a black screen hang with less than mem=24m, so I'm kinda surprised you got far enough to even add swap.
-Mike
- 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/
| |