From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:44:10 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] oom: various fixes and improvements for 2.6.18-rc2 Message-Id: <20060728004410.63bba676.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20060515210529.30275.74992.sendpatchset@linux.site> References: <20060515210529.30275.74992.sendpatchset@linux.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:20:44 +0200 (CEST) Nick Piggin wrote: > These are some various OOM killer fixes that I have accumulated. Some of > the more important ones are in SLES10, and were developed in response to > issues coming up in stress testing. > > The other small fixes haven't been widely tested, but they're issues I > spotted when working in this area. > > Comments? They all look good to me (although I haven't grappled with the cpuset ones yet). The "oom: reclaim_mapped on oom" one is kinda funny. Back in 2.5.early I decided that we were probably donig too much scanning before declaring oom so I randomly reduced it by a factor of, iirc, four. Under the assumption that someone would start hitting early ooms and would get in there and tune it for real. It took five years ;) Which of these patches have been well-tested and which are the more speculative ones? -- 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