Re: swapping and oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201d2, order=0

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 15:14 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> The current mm behaviour in 2.6, during physical memory exhaustion, expresses 
> itself as an oom-killing spree, while the kernel could have resorted to 
> swapping.
> 
> Is there a reason why oom-killing is currently preferred over swapping?

Looks to me like you booted with mem=8m, and these allocations are
failing because every page the page allocator tried to issue were marked
as being reserved.  The SysRq-M output shows that it did try to swap as
it limped along.

My box won't get past a black screen hang with less than mem=24m, so I'm
kinda surprised you got far enough to even add swap.

	-Mike

-
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/