Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?

On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 12:39:31PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >DMA free:44kB min:32kB low:40kB high:48kB active:0kB inactive:0kB
> >present:15728kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable? yes
> 
> I think the big question is who used up all the DMA zone.. Surely not 
> the floppy driver..

The kernel text and data? "readelf -S vmlinux" output would be useful.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Chris Largret <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
    • From: Robert Hancock <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.16-rc4-mm2: drivers/rtc/utils.c should become part of a generic implementation
• Next by Date: Re: Building 100 kernels; we suck at dependencies and drown in warnings
• Previous by thread: Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
• Next by thread: Re: OOM-killer too aggressive?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]