> > > > Can you please schedule a run for the diff attached, in which > > non-expensive allocators are allowed to burn more CPU cycles. > > I do not think your patch will help. As you can see, both OOMs were for > order-2 and there simply are no order-2+ free blocks usable for the > allocation request so the watermark check will fail for all eligible > zones and no_progress_loops is simply ignored. This is what I've tried > to address by patch I have just posted as a reply to Hugh's email > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160225092315.GD17573@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Hm, Mr. Swap can tell us more. Hillf -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>