[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: OOM killer even when not overcommiting
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Andrew Morton
<> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:58:26 +0200
> Sasha Levin <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I assumed that when setting overcommit_memory=2 and
>> overcommit_ratio<100 that the OOM killer won't ever get invoked (since
>> we're not overcommiting memory), but it looks like I'm mistaken since
>> apparently a simple mmap from userspace will trigger the OOM killer if
>> it requests more memory than available.
>> Is it how it's supposed to work?  Why does it resort to OOM killing
>> instead of just failing the allocation?
>> Here is the dump I get when the OOM kicks in:
>> ...
>> [ 3108.730350]  [<ffffffff81198e4a>] mlock_vma_pages_range+0x9a/0xa0
>> [ 3108.734486]  [<ffffffff8119b75b>] mmap_region+0x28b/0x510
>> ...
> The vma is mlocked for some reason - presumably the app is using
> mlockall() or mlock()?  So the kernel is trying to instantiate all the
> pages at mmap() time.

The app may have used mlock(), but there is no swap space on the
machine (it's also a KVM guest), so it should matter, no?

Regardless, why doesn't it result in mmap() failing quietly, instead
of kicking in the OOM killer to kill the entire process?
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: 2012-03-05 21:15    [W:0.033 / U:11.456 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site