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:

quoted

Chris Ross escreveu:

quoted

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: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>