On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:00:45 -0500
Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800
> > "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP:
> > > http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log
> >
> > The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong
> > there. The machine has used up all swap, has used up all memory and has
> > correctly gone and killed things. After that, there's free memory again.
>
> We covered this a month or two back. For RHEL5, we've ended up
> reintroducing the oom killer prevention logic that we had up until
> circa 2.6.10. It seemed that there exist circumstances where
> given a little more time, some memory hogging apps will run to completion
> allowing other allocators to succeed instead of being killed.
I _think_ what you're describing here is a false-positive oom-killing? But
Martin appears to be hitting a genuine oom.
But it does appear that some changes are needed, because lots of things got
oom-killed.
I think. Maybe not - there's no timestamping in those logs and it is of
course possible that we're seeing unrelated ooms which happened a long time
apart.
> For reference, here's the patch that Larry Woodman came up with
> for RHEL5.
gulp.
-
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/
[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]
