> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Craig Schlenter wrote:
> >
> > I had my box 'lock-up' on me with a slightly modified 2.1.116. I'm running
> > with the above line fixed and with the page ageing #ifdef set to 1 instead
> > of 0. I have 32M RAM, 128M swap and had KDE, netscape, pine, winamp, kpm
[snip]
> Ok. This is a "good" lockup as far as the kernel is concerned.
>
> It probably means that the kernel is a bit too eager to return memory
> allocation failures, which is something I didn't expect from the changes,
> but should be a matter of turning a knob or two.
I think the kernel is fine ... I missed the ! in the statement below
(thanks to Alan Modra):
if (!(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)) { /* changed */
current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
do {
retval = do_try_to_free_page(gfp_mask);
if (!retval)
break;
count--;
} while (count > 0);
current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC; /* changed */
}
My box has been up since doing this change (19 hours) and is 50 megs into
swap and seems fine.
The way I read it, without the !, do_try_free_page would never have been
called (unless something else tunes PF_MEMALLOC but I didn't spot
anything). That would perhaps explain the problems I saw. Right?
I see 117 is out so I'll try that out in a minute or two ...
Thank you,
--Craig
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html