Re: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable braindamage

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 06:35:52PM -0800, 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.

Andrew,

When reading the code I was really suspicious of the all_unreclaimable code. 
It basically stops scanning when reaching OOM conditions - that might be it.

I tried to disable it (ignore it if priority==0) - result: very slow progress 
on extreme load. 

-
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/