From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263040AbUGICO3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2004 22:14:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263204AbUGICO2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2004 22:14:28 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:53676 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263040AbUGICOV (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jul 2004 22:14:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:12:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, petero2@telia.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Can't make use of swap memory in 2.6.7-bk19 Message-Id: <20040708191254.2475c8d1.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040709020905.GT21066@holomorphy.com> References: <40ECADF8.7010207@yahoo.com.au> <20040708023001.GN21066@holomorphy.com> <20040708193956.GO21066@holomorphy.com> <40EDED5D.80605@yahoo.com.au> <20040709015317.GR21066@holomorphy.com> <40EDFDBE.5040805@yahoo.com.au> <20040709020905.GT21066@holomorphy.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> They added a flag indicating wiredness or no to the gfp_mask, which was > >> then propagated down the call chain and eventually passed as an argument > >> to out_of_memory(). In turn, out_of_memory() used the flag to determine > >> whether the nr_swap_pages > 0 check was relevant. i.e. they refined the > >> OOM conditions based on the wiredness of the failing allocation. What > >> probably got the stuff permavetoed was the stats reporting I did along > >> with it that would have been trivial to drop while retaining the needed > >> functional change. The patch was motivated by the nr_swap_pages > 0 > >> check deadlocking. The __GFP_WIRED business was done to discriminate > >> the obvious deadlocking scenario from the false OOM mentioned here. > > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 12:06:54PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > No, I did see those patches. I'm not saying they're not worth > > persuing; on the contrary, they look quite interesting. However, > > it might worthwhile looking at more basic things first, for this > > problem anyway. > > Enumerate those more basic things. > 1: work out why it's prematurely calling out_of_memory() when laptop_mode=1.