Re: [PATCH] fix spurious OOM kills

Marcelo Tosatti
2004-11-17T06:08:52Z

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 04:06:48AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 01:23:46AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Chris Ross <chris@tebibyte.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > As I suspected, like a recalcitrant teenager it was sneakily waiting
> > > until everyone was out then it threw a wild party with several ooms and
> > > an oops. See below...
> >
> > That's not an oops - it's just a stack trace.
> >
> > > This, obviously is still without Kame's patch, just the same tree as
> > > before with the one change you asked for.
> >
> > Please ignore the previous patch and try the below. It looks like Rik's
> > analysis is correct: when the caller doesn't have the swap token it just
> > cannot reclaim referenced pages and scans its way into an oom. Defeating
> > that logic when we've hit the highest scanning priority does seem to fix
> > the problem and those nice qsbench numbers which the thrashing control gave
> > us appear to be unaffected.
>
> Oh, this fixes my testcase, and was the reason for the hog slow speed.
>
> Excellent, wasted several days in vain. :(

Before the swap token patches went in you remember spurious OOM reports
or things were working fine then?