Message-ID: <41902F83.6060200@cyberone.com.au>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:46:27 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040820 Debian/1.7.2-4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
CC: marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable
 braindamage
References: <20041105200118.GA20321@logos.cnet>	<20041108162731.GE2336@logos.cnet>	<20041108185546.GA3468@logos.cnet>	<419029D9.90506@cyberone.com.au> <20041108183552.7caccad1.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20041108183552.7caccad1.akpm@osdl.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1079
Lines: 33


Andrew Morton wrote:

>Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> 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.
>
>
>

Oh yeah, there definitely seems to be OOM problems as well (although
luckily not _too_ many people seem to be complaining).

I thought Marcelo was talking about increased incidents of people
reporting eg. order-0 atomic allocation failures though, after the
recentish code from you and I to fix up alloc_pages.

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