From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:44:17 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix spurious OOM kills Message-ID: <20041114094417.GC29267@logos.cnet> References: <20041111112922.GA15948@logos.cnet> <4193E056.6070100@tebibyte.org> <4194EA45.90800@tebibyte.org> <20041113233740.GA4121@x30.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041113233740.GA4121@x30.random> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Chris Ross , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Nick Piggin , Rik van Riel , Martin MOKREJ? , tglx@linutronix.de List-ID: On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 12:37:40AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:52:21PM +0100, Chris Ross wrote: > > > > > > Chris Ross escreveu: > > >It seems good. > > > > Sorry Marcelo, I spoke to soon. The oom killer still goes haywire even > > with your new patch. I even got this one whilst the machine was booting! > > On monday I'll make a patch to place the oom killer at the right place. > > Marcelo's argument that kswapd is a localized place isn't sound to me, > kswapd is still racing against all other task contexts, so if the task > context isn't reliable, there's no reason why kswapd should be more > reliable than the task context. the trick is to check the _right_ > watermarks before invoking the oom killer, it's not about racing against > each other, 2.6 is buggy in not checking the watermarks. Moving the oom > killer in kswapd can only make thing worse, fix is simple, and it's the > opposite thing: move the oom killer up the stack outside vmscan.c. Its hard to detect OOM situation with zone->all_unreclaimable logic. Well, I'll wait for your correct and definitive approach. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org