From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc5-mm2: OOM with 1G free swap Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:11:47 +1000 References: <20080609223145.5c9a2878.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080611060029.GA5011@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <20080611060029.GA5011@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806111611.47402.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wednesday 11 June 2008 16:00, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:31:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > - This is a bugfixed version of 2.6.26-rc5-mm1 - mainly to repair a > > vmscan.c bug which would have prevented testing of the other vmscan.c > > bugs^Wchanges. > > OOM condition happened with 1G free swap. Seems like you've got little or no anon pages left, so 1GB free swap is no problem (nothing left to page out). > 4G RAM, 1G swap partition, normally LTP survives during much, much higher > load. I would hope it is not a memory leak (which might point to lockless pagecache). It doesn't look like it because there is still lots of inactive file pages, so that points to the page reclaim changes (which is not to say page reclaim changes couldn't cause a memory leak themselves). Curious: if you kill off all the LTP tests after the OOM condition, what does your /proc/meminfo look like before and after running sync ; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches -- 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