On Thu, Jan 20 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:15:56PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:34:06PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > Using current BK on my x86-64 workstation, it went completely nuts today > > > killing tasks left and right with oodles of free memory available. > > > > Yes, the fact that the oom-killer exists is a serious problem. > > People work on trying to tune it, instead of just removing it. > > I'm working on fixing it, not just tuning it. The bugs in mainline > aren't about the selection algorithm (which is normally what people > calls oom killer). The bugs in mainline are about being able to kill a > task reliably, regardless of which task we pick, and every linux kernel > out there has always killed some task when it was oom. So the bugs are > just obvious regressions of 2.6 if compared to 2.4. > > But this is all fixed now, I'm starting sending the first patches to > Anderw very shortly (last week there was still the oracle stuff going > on). Now I can fix the rejects. > > I will guarantee nothing about which task will be picked (that's the old > code at works, I changed not a bit in what normally people calls "the oom > killer", plus the recent improvement from Thomas), but I guarantee the > VM won't kill tasks right and left like it does now (i.e. by invoking the > oom killer multiple times).
And especially not with 500MB of zone normal free, thanks :) 2.6.11-rc1-xx vm behaviour is looking a _lot_ worse than 2.6.10 btw, I haven't looked closer at what has changed yet it's just a subjective feeling. I regularly have to run a fillmem.c hog to prune caches or it runs like an old dog. -- Jens Axboe - 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/