Re: per-process shared information

Andrea Arcangeli
2004-10-15T00:06:21Z

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.