Re: [PATCH] Negative (setpoint-dirty) in bdi_position_ratio()

[paul . szabo]

Dear Fengguang,

> There are 260MB reclaimable slab pages in the normal zone ...

Marked "all_unreclaimable? yes": is that wrong? Question asked also in:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=135873981326767&w=2

> ... however we somehow failed to reclaim them. ...

I made a patch that would do a drop_caches at that point, please see:
http://bugs.debian.org/695182
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=101;filename=drop_caches.patch;att=1;bug=695182
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=135785511125549&w=2
and that successfully avoided OOM when writing files.
But, the drop_caches patch did not protect against the "sleep test".

> ... What's your filesystem and the content of /proc/slabinfo?

Filesystem is EXT3. See output of slabinfo in Debian bug above or in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=135796154427544&w=2

Thanks, Paul

Paul Szabo   psz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics   University of Sydney    Australia
--
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/