Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030829AbWI0Uyn (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:54:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030830AbWI0Uyn (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:54:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:63160 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030829AbWI0Uym (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:54:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:54:35 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Linux Kernel Subject: oom kill oddness. Message-ID: <20060927205435.GF1319@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1018 Lines: 23 So I have two boxes that are very similar. Both have 2GB of RAM & 1GB of swap space. One has a 2.8GHz CPU, the other a 2.93GHz CPU, both dualcore. The slower box survives a 'make -j bzImage' of a 2.6.18 kernel tree without incident. (Although it takes ~4 minutes longer than a -j2) The faster box goes absolutely nuts, oomkilling everything in sight, until eventually after about 10 minutes, the box locks up dead, and won't even respond to pings. Oh, the only other difference - the slower box has 1 disk, whereas the faster box has two in RAID0. I'm not surprised that stuff is getting oom-killed given the pathological scenario, but the fact that the box never recovered at all is a little odd. Does md lack some means of dealing with low memory scenarios ? Dave - 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/