[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200806111631.13920.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:31:13 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc5-mm2: OOM with 1G free swap
On Wednesday 11 June 2008 16:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:00:29 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:31:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > - This is a bugfixed version of 2.6.26-rc5-mm1 - mainly to repair a
> > > vmscan.c bug which would have prevented testing of the other vmscan.c
> > > bugs^Wchanges.
> >
> > OOM condition happened with 1G free swap.
>
> Thanks for testing. Again.
>
> > 4G RAM, 1G swap partition, normally LTP survives during much, much higher
> > load.
> >
> > vm.overcommit_memory = 0
> > vm.overcommit_ratio = 50
>
> Well I assume that Rik ran LTP. Perhaps a merge problem.
>
> > ...
> >
> > [ 6773.608125] init invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x1201d2, order=0,
> > oomkilladj=0
>
> GFP_USER
>
> > [ 6773.608215] Pid: 1, comm: init Not tainted 2.6.26-rc5-mm2 #2
>
> wot? The oom-killer isn't supposed to kill init!
It is init that invokes the OOM killer, the actual process killed
comes at the end I believe:
[...]
> > [ 6773.631799] Out of memory: kill process 4788 (sshd) score 11194 or a
> > child [ 6773.631876] Killed process 4789 (bash)
--
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