From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:00:48 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: Question about OOM-Killer Message-ID: <20050723130048.GA16460@dmt.cnet> References: <20050718122101.751125ef.washer@trlp.com> <20050718123650.01a49f31.washer@trlp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050718123650.01a49f31.washer@trlp.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: James Washer Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@muc.de List-ID: James, Can you send the OOM killer output? I dont know which devices part of an x86-64 system should be limited to 16Mb of physical addressing. Andi? I don't think that any devices should have 16MB limitation On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:36:50PM -0700, James Washer wrote: > Sorry, I should have added... > 2.6.11.10, > x86-64 dual proc (Intel Xeon 3.4GHz) > 6GiB ram > Intel Corporation 82801EB (ICH5) SATA Controller (rev 0) > Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 > Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 6Y160M0 Rev: YAR5 > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 > Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00 > Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 7Y250M0 Rev: YAR5 > Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 > > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:21:01 -0700 > James Washer wrote: > > > I'm chasing down a system problem where the DMA memory (x86-64, god knows why it is using DMA memory) > drops below the minimum, and the OOM-Killer is fired off. > > > > It just strikes me odd that the OOM-Killer would be called at all for DMA memory. > What's the chance of regaining DMA memory by killing user land processes? > > > > I'll admit, I know very little about linux VM, so perhaps I'm missing how oom killing can be helpful here. -- 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: email@kvack.org