Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed

• Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Linux-2.4.10 - necessary patches"
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.4.10 improved reiserfs a lot, but could still be better"
• In reply to: Olaf Hering: "Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed"
• Next in thread: Jacek Popławski: "Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Sep 24, Olaf Hering wrote:

> mandarine:~ # vmstat
> procs memory swap io system
> cpu
> r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us
> sy id
> 3 0 1 0 2744 53944 1794968 0 0 440 343 75 300 14
> 28 58
> mandarine:~ # free
> Killed
>
>
> That did not happen with pre10aa1, at least the OOM kills.
> I happend with a bk pull, a build in the background. I seems that it
> doesnt release some memory...

it seems that the cache grows and grows, one bk process was still active. No idea
who to blame, but it should not kill the box :)

27429 pts/0 D 3:59 bk idcache -q

Gruss Olaf

-- 
 $ man clone
BUGS
       Main feature not yet implemented...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Linux-2.4.10 - necessary patches"
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] 2.4.10 improved reiserfs a lot, but could still be better"
• In reply to: Olaf Hering: "Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed"
• Next in thread: Jacek Popławski: "Re: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:00:23 EST