Re: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimablebraindamage

[Nick Piggin]

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
> 3x.
>
> 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/