Re: [PATCH] Remove OOM killer from try_to_free_pages / all_unreclaimable braindamage

[Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>]

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 01:46:27PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> 
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> >Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm not sure... it could also be just be a fluke
> >>due to chaotic effects in the mm, I suppose :|
> >>
> >
> >2.6 scans less than 2.4 before declaring oom.  I looked at the 2.4
> >implementation and thought "whoa, that's crazy - let's reduce it and see
> >who complains".  My three-year-old memory tells me it was reduced by 2x to
> >3x.
> >
> >We need to find testcases (dammit) and do the analysis.  It could be that
> >we're simply not scanning far enough.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Oh yeah, there definitely seems to be OOM problems as well (although
> luckily not _too_ many people seem to be complaining).
> 
> I thought Marcelo was talking about increased incidents of people
> reporting eg. order-0 atomic allocation failures though, after the
> recentish code from you and I to fix up alloc_pages.

Yes that is what I'm talking about - it should be happening. 

The amount of reports is _too high_. I can at least one report 
of 0-order page allocation failure a day.