Re: Google's mm problem - not reproduced on 2.4.13

Rik van Riel
2001-11-01T01:41:49Z

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Ben Smith wrote:

> > *Just in case* it's oom-related I've asked Ben to try it with one less than
> > the maximum number of memory blocks he can allocate.
>
> I've run this test with my 3.5G machine, 3 blocks instead of 4 blocks,
> and it has the same behavior (my app gets killed, 0-order allocation
> failures, and the system stays up.

If you still have swap free at the point where the process
gets killed, or if the memory is file-backed, then we are
positive it's a kernel bug.

regards,

Rik
--
DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/