Re: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimablebraindamage
From: Nick Piggin
Date: Mon Nov 08 2004 - 21:47:23 EST
Andrew Morton wrote:
Nick Piggin <piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not sure... it could also be just be a fluke
due to chaotic effects in the mm, I suppose :|
2.6 scans less than 2.4 before declaring oom. I looked at the 2.4
implementation and thought "whoa, that's crazy - let's reduce it and see
who complains". My three-year-old memory tells me it was reduced by 2x to
We need to find testcases (dammit) and do the analysis. It could be that
we're simply not scanning far enough.
Oh yeah, there definitely seems to be OOM problems as well (although
luckily not _too_ many people seem to be complaining).
I thought Marcelo was talking about increased incidents of people
reporting eg. order-0 atomic allocation failures though, after the
recentish code from you and I to fix up alloc_pages.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/