| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20060927165954.b73a389c.akpm@osdl.org> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:59:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: oom kill oddness. On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:54:35 -0400 Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote: > 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 ? Are you sure it isn't a memory leak? Suggest you kill things just before it locks up, have a look at /proc/meminfo, /proc/slabinfo, sysrq-M, echo 3>/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches, etc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists