On Thursday 25 October 2007 12:43, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Ummm... all unreclaimable is set! Are you mlocking the pages in memory? > > > Or what causes this? All pages under writeback? What is the dirty ratio > > > set to? > > > > Why is SLUB behaving differently, though. > > Nore sure. Are we really sure that this does not occur using SLAB?
>From the reports it seems pretty consistent. I guess it could well be something that may occur with SLAB *if the conditions are a bit different*... > > Memory efficiency wouldn't be the reason, would it? I mean, SLUB > > should be more efficient than SLAB, plus have less data lying around > > in queues. > > SLAB may have data around in queues which (if the stars align the right > way) may allow it to go longer without having to get a page from the page > allocator. But page allocs from slab isn't where the OOMs are occurring, so this seems unlikely (also, the all_unreclaimable logic now should be pretty strict, so you have to really run the machine out of memory (1GB of swap gets fully used, then his DMA32 zone is scanned 8 times without reclaiming a single page). That said, parallel kernel compiling can really change a lot in memory footprint depending on small variations in timing. So it might not be anything to worry about. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/