From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750926AbWELFsf (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 May 2006 01:48:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750929AbWELFsf (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 May 2006 01:48:35 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:9453 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750926AbWELFse (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 May 2006 01:48:34 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: Re: swapping and oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x201d2, order=0 From: Mike Galbraith To: Al Boldi Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200605111514.45503.a1426z@gawab.com> References: <200605111514.45503.a1426z@gawab.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 07:48:30 +0200 Message-Id: <1147412910.8432.14.camel@homer> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 15:14 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > The current mm behaviour in 2.6, during physical memory exhaustion, expresses > itself as an oom-killing spree, while the kernel could have resorted to > swapping. > > Is there a reason why oom-killing is currently preferred over swapping? Looks to me like you booted with mem=8m, and these allocations are failing because every page the page allocator tried to issue were marked as being reserved. The SysRq-M output shows that it did try to swap as it limped along. My box won't get past a black screen hang with less than mem=24m, so I'm kinda surprised you got far enough to even add swap. -Mike