> > > > Can you please schedule a run for the diff attached, in which > > non-expensive allocators are allowed to burn more CPU cycles. > > I do not think your patch will help. As you can see, both OOMs were for > order-2 and there simply are no order-2+ free blocks usable for the > allocation request so the watermark check will fail for all eligible > zones and no_progress_loops is simply ignored. This is what I've tried > to address by patch I have just posted as a reply to Hugh's email > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > Hm, Mr. Swap can tell us more.
Hillf
