On Fri, Jan 21 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:09:41AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Jan 20 13:22:15 wiggum kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd1
>
> This was a GFP_KERNEL|GFP_DMA allocation triggering this. However it
> didn't look so much out of DMA zone, there's 4M of ram
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:09:41AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Jan 20 13:22:15 wiggum kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0xd1
This was a GFP_KERNEL|GFP_DMA allocation triggering this. However it
didn't look so much out of DMA zone, there's 4M of ram free. Could be
the ram was relased by another CPU in th
On Fri, Jan 21 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:42:08AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > And especially not with 500MB of zone normal free, thanks :)
>
> ;) Are you sure you had 500m free even before the _first_ oom killing?
No it wasn't, the first looked like this:
Jan 20
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:42:08AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> And especially not with 500MB of zone normal free, thanks :)
;) Are you sure you had 500m free even before the _first_ oom killing?
I assumed what you posted was not the first one of the oom killing
messages. If it was the first then t
On Thu, Jan 20 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:15:56PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:34:06PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > > Using current BK on my x86-64 workstation, it went completely nuts today
> > > killing tasks left and right with
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:57:07PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Andries Brouwer wrote:
>
> >But let me stress that I also consider the earlier situation
> >unacceptable. It is really bad to lose a few weeks of computation.
>
> Shouldn't the application be backing up intermediate results to disk
Andries Brouwer wrote:
But let me stress that I also consider the earlier situation
unacceptable. It is really bad to lose a few weeks of computation.
Shouldn't the application be backing up intermediate results to disk
periodically? Power outages do occur, as do bus faults, electrical
glitches,
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 06:15:44PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Yes, the fact that the oom-killer exists is a serious problem.
> > People work on trying to tune it, instead of just removing it.
>
> I'm working on fixing it, not just tuning it. The bugs in mainline
> aren't about the selecti
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 12:00:34PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:15:56PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > Yes, the fact that the oom-killer exists is a serious problem.
> > People work on trying to tune it, instead of just removing it.
> >
> > I am getting reports th
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:15:56PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:34:06PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > Using current BK on my x86-64 workstation, it went completely nuts today
> > killing tasks left and right with oodles of free memory available.
>
> Yes, the fact th
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:15:56PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:34:06PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > Using current BK on my x86-64 workstation, it went completely nuts today
> > killing tasks left and right with oodles of free memory available.
>
> Yes, the fact th
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:34:06PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Using current BK on my x86-64 workstation, it went completely nuts today
> killing tasks left and right with oodles of free memory available.
Yes, the fact that the oom-killer exists is a serious problem.
People work on trying to tune
12 matches
Mail list logo
