Re: [PATCH] fix spurious OOM kills
From: Marcelo Tosatti
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 08:36:05 EST
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:
> > Chris Ross escreveu:
> > >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 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/