Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 > "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: >> http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log > > The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong > there. The

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong there. The machine has used up

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:25:38 -0500 Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 11:11:53PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:00:45 -0500 > > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 11:11:53PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:00:45 -0500 > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 > > > "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:00:45 -0500 Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 > > "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: > > >

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 > "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: > > http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log > > The traces are a bit confusing, but I

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:35:40 -0800 "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong > > there. The machine has used up all swap, has used up all memory and has > > correctly gone and killed things. After that, there's free

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong there. The machine has used up all swap, has used up all memory and has correctly gone and killed things. After that, there's free memory again. Yeah, it's just a bit odd that it's always in the IO path. Makes me suspect

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 "Martin J. Bligh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: > http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong there. The machine has used up all swap, has used

OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201d2, order=0 Call Trace: [] out_of_memory+0x33/0x220 [] __alloc_pages+0x23a/0x2c3 [] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x99/0x212 [] sync_page+0x0/0x45 [] io_schedule+0x28/0x33 []

OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201d2, order=0 Call Trace: [802638cb] out_of_memory+0x33/0x220 [80265374] __alloc_pages+0x23a/0x2c3 [802667d2] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x99/0x212

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong there. The machine has used up all swap, has used up all

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong there. The machine has used up all swap, has used up all memory and has correctly gone and killed things. After that, there's free memory again. Yeah, it's just a bit odd that it's always in the IO path. Makes me suspect

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:35:40 -0800 Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually see anything wrong there. The machine has used up all swap, has used up all memory and has correctly gone and killed things. After that, there's free memory

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP: http://test.kernel.org/abat/48393/debug/console.log The traces are a bit confusing, but I don't actually

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:00:45 -0500 Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2.6.18-rc7 and later during LTP:

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 11:11:53PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:00:45 -0500 Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:03:45 -0800 Martin J. Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Re: OOM killer firing on 2.6.18 and later during LTP runs

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:25:38 -0500 Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 11:11:53PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:00:45 -0500 Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 01:28:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat,