[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: swapping and oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201d2, order=0
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 15:11 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 15:17 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Note that this is not specific to mem=8M, but rather a general oom
> > > observation even for mem=4G, where it is only much later to occur.
> >
> > An oom situation with 4G ram would be more interesting than this one.
> Agreed, but can you tell me what readahead has to do with this oom?
> oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201d2, order=0
> [<c013ff25>] out_of_memory+0xa5/0xc0
> [<c0141099>] __alloc_pages+0x279/0x310
> [<c0143669>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0xe9/0x120
> [<c0143b3f>] max_sane_readahead+0x2f/0x50
> [<c013d8cb>] filemap_nopage+0x2eb/0x370
> [<c0149ea5>] do_no_page+0x65/0x220
> [<c014a1dc>] __handle_mm_fault+0xec/0x200
> [<c0113258>] do_page_fault+0x188/0x5c5
> [<c01130d0>] do_page_fault+0x0/0x5c5
> [<c0103a0f>] error_code+0x4f/0x54

Nothing except that it asked for a page at a bad time, triggering the
bad-hair-day reaction. That being said, the readahead allocation mask
should have probably included GFP_NORETRY. (though with 8MB, if the
readahead didn't get you, the subsequent read probably would anyway)


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: 2006-05-13 14:56    [W:0.071 / U:10.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site