linux-kernel - Re: OOM kernel behaviour

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B1FAB80.3020907@cybus.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:52:00 +0000
From:	Jonathan Miles <jon@...us.co.uk>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David John <davidjon@...ontk.org>,
	penberg@...helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: OOM kernel behaviour - 2.6.32

On 04/12/09 20:36 Jonathan Miles said the following:

> Everything is fine having compiled straight 2.6.32. I watched the cache
> being reclaimed with top as I used more and more RAM and didn't see the
> OOM killer being invoked. So it was either a problem with 2.6.31 or with
> whatever Ubuntu did to make the .deb.

Having said that, on the 6th day of running straight 2.6.32, I just saw
the OOM killer invoked when ~1.1GB out of 2GB RAM was being used by the
page cache... which killed my Visual Paradigm (java) process. I've
attached the kernel debug output - is there anything obvious in there as
to why the page cache couldn't be reclaimed, or is this a bug?

Regards,

-- 
Jonathan Miles <jon@...us.co.uk>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jonmiles

View attachment "OOM3_2.6.32.txt" of type "text/plain" (4392 bytes)