On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:57:40AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > [snip] > > > Without your mem_cgroup mods in mm/swap_state.c, unuse_pte makes > > the right assignments (I believe). But I find that swapout (using > > 600M in a 512M machine) from a 200M cgroup quickly OOMs, whereas > > it behaves correctly with your mm/swap_state.c. > > > > On my UML setup, I booted the UML instance with 512M of memory and > used the swapout program that you shared. I tried two things > > > 1. Ran swapout without any changes. The program ran well without > any OOM condition occuring, lot of reclaim occured. > 2. Ran swapout with the changes to mm/swap_state.c removed (diff below) > and I still did not see any OOM. The reclaim count was much lesser > since swap cache did not get accounted back to the cgroup from > which pages were being evicted. > > I am not sure why I don't see the OOM that you see, still trying. May be > I missing something obvious at this late hour in the night :-) I reconfirm that I do see those OOMs. I'll have to try harder to analyze how they come about: I sure don't expect you to debug a problem you cannot reproduce. But what happens if you try it native rather than using UML? Hugh _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
