Pretty typical message here...
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd1
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA per-cpu:
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 hot: low 2, high 6, batch 1
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 2, batch 1 
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal per-cpu:
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 hot: low 32, high 96, batch 16
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: cpu 1 cold: low 0, high 32, batch 16
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem per-cpu: empty
Jul  6 17:31:27 p6 kernel: 
Jul  6 17:31:31 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): SIGHUP received, reloading all databases
Jul  6 17:31:37 p6 kernel: Free pages:       16236kB (0kB HighMem)
Jul  6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[9041]: session closed for user root
Jul  6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[10645]: session closed for user root
Jul  6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[8044]: session closed for user root
Jul  6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[7228]: session closed for user root
Jul  6 17:31:38 p6 su(pam_unix)[16136]: session closed for user root
Jul  6 17:31:48 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory" to a read-only configuration source at position 0
Jul  6 17:31:49 p6 kernel: Active:596167 inactive:854867 dirty:624740 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:4059 slab:52688 mapped:595231 pagetables:4862
Jul  6 17:32:00 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readwrite:/home/washer/.gconf" to a writable configuration source at position 1
Jul  6 17:32:02 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA free:20kB min:24kB low:28kB high:36kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:16384kB pages_scanned:1 all_unreclaimable? yes
Jul  6 17:32:04 p6 gconfd (washer-7174): Resolved address "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults" to a read-only configuration source at position 2
Jul  6 17:32:06 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 7152 7152
Jul  6 17:32:11 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal free:16216kB min:10808kB low:13508kB high:16212kB active:2384668kB inactive:3419468kB present:7323648kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem free:0kB min:128kB low:160kB high:192kB active:0kB inactive:0kB present:0kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? no
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 DMA: 1*4kB 0*8kB 1*16kB 0*32kB 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 20kB
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 Normal: 34*4kB 192*8kB 53*16kB 92*32kB 2*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 1*2048kB 2*4096kB = 16216kB
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Node 0 HighMem: empty
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Swap cache: add 48, delete 48, find 0/0, race 0+0
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Free swap  = 8385728kB
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Total swap = 8385920kB
Jul  6 17:32:13 p6 kernel: Out of Memory: Killed process 10475 (firefox-bin).


On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:00:48 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti [off-list ref] wrote:

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:

quoted

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 [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

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?

quoted

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