Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's

• Next message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] BUG(): sched.c: Line 944"
• Previous message: Stephen Rothwell: "[PATCH][TRIVIAL] sigmask() was mutilply defined"
• In reply to: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's"
• Next in thread: Christoph Rohland: "Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's"
• Reply: Christoph Rohland: "Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's"
• Reply: Hugh Dickins: "Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> MemTotal: 32107256 kB
> >> MemFree: 27564648 kB
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 09:58:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I'd be suspecting that your node fallback is bust.
> > Suggest you add a call to show_free_areas() somewhere; consider
> > exposing the full per-zone status via /proc with a proper patch.
>
> I went through the nodes by hand. It's just a run of the mill
> ZONE_NORMAL OOM coming out of the GFP_USER allocation. None of
> the highmem zones were anywhere near ->pages_low.
>

erk. Why is shmem using GFP_USER?

mnm:/usr/src/25> grep page_address mm/shmem.c
mnm:/usr/src/25>
-
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: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] BUG(): sched.c: Line 944"
• Previous message: Stephen Rothwell: "[PATCH][TRIVIAL] sigmask() was mutilply defined"
• In reply to: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's"
• Next in thread: Christoph Rohland: "Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's"
• Reply: Christoph Rohland: "Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's"
• Reply: Hugh Dickins: "Re: dbench on tmpfs OOM's"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:18 EST