Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:42:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:42:46 -0500 Received: from white.pocketinet.com ([12.17.167.5]:5142 "EHLO white.pocketinet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:42:40 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Nicholas Knight Reply-To: nknight@pocketinet.com To: Stephan von Krawczynski , "Phil Oester" Subject: Re: 1gb RAM + 1gb SWAP + make -j bzImage = OOM Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:42:43 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <004b01c1955e$ecbc9190$6400a8c0@philxp> <20020104220240.233ae66a.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20020104220240.233ae66a.skraw@ithnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2002 00:41:08.0199 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA34C770:01C19581] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 04 January 2002 01:02 pm, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:32:27 -0800 > > "Phil Oester" wrote: > > On 2.4.17, I can't make -j bzImage without OOM kicking in. > > Relatively light .config here - bzImage compiles to less than 1mb. > > > > Seems with 1 gb of RAM and swap, the box should be able to handle > > this (box is dual P3 600 btw). > > > > Is this unreasonable? How much RAM should it take to accomplish > > this??? > > You should give a bit more info on that, especially vmstat and the > like. I cannot reproduce this. Neither on 1GB/256MB nor on 2GB/256MB > RAM/SWAP. (P3-1GHz, dual SMP, 2.4.17) > I have absilutely no trouble reproducing on an 800MHz Athlon with 256MB RAM/256MB swap on 2.4.17 The one catch is that -j is specified without a number. from man make: -j jobs Specifies the number of jobs (commands) to run simultaneously. If there is more than one -j option, the last one is effective. **If the -j option is given without an argument, make will not limit the number of jobs that can run simultaneously.** (emphasis mine) Hence, unlimited number of jobs, theoreticaly unlimited amount of memory usage. The last number of processes I saw in top before the system was basically dead and I just hit A-SYSRQ-S and A-SYSRQ-B was 416, and all the top processes were make or cc Somehow I doubt this is a kernel issue and is instead a make and user issue. A make issue because it's probably poor design to have an option that's specified with a number be normaly harmless and useful, be potentialy lethal when the number is left off, so if you forget the number, your system is dead. A user issue because it seems the user is using the option without fully comprehending the consequences. > Regards, > Stephan > - 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/