Re: per-process shared information

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@novell.com>]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:47:11PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrea!
> 
> No useful comments on the statm reporting issue.
> 
> > Ps. if somebody like Hugh volunteers implementing it, you're very
> > welcome, just let me know (I'll eventually want to work on the oom
> > handling too, which is pretty screwed right now, 
> 
> Yes, we've got reports of bad OOM killing behaviour (is that what you're
> talking about?) 
> 
> One thing is the removal of "if (nr_swap_pages > 0) goto out" from oom_kill() 
> causes problems (spurious oom kill). 
> 
> We need to throttle more, on page reclaiming progress I think.
> 
> Take a look at 
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-mm&m=109587921204602&w=2
> 
> What else you're seeing?
> 
> > I've plenty of bugs
> > open on that area and the lowmem zone protection needs a rewrite too to
> > be set to a sane default value no matter the pages_lows etc..).
> 
> Nick has been working on that lately I think. What is the problem?

things went worse with the switch from 2.6.8 to 2.6.9-rc, so that's not
the nr_swap_pages > 0, likely the latest changes introduced regressions
instead of fixing them.

I'm seeing both hard deadlocks and suprious oom kills, and that all
makes sense, I can see the bugs, it's just I need to fix them, my plan
is to forward port some code from 2.4 which works fine, objrmap will make
it even better.