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

Nick Piggin
2004-11-09T02:46:35Z

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.