On (02/25/16 17:48), Hillf Danton wrote: > > > 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. Hi, after *preliminary testing* both patches seem to work. at least I don't see oom-kills and there are some swapouts. Michal Hocko's total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 3836880 2458020 35992 115984 1342868 1181484 Swap: 8388604 2008 8386596 total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 3836880 2459516 39616 115880 1337748 1180156 Swap: 8388604 2052 8386552 total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 3836880 2460584 33944 115880 1342352 1179004 Swap: 8388604 2132 8386472 ... Hillf Danton's total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 3836880 1661000 554236 116448 1621644 1978872 Swap: 8388604 1548 8387056 total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 3836880 1660500 554740 116448 1621640 1979376 Swap: 8388604 1548 8387056 ... I'll do more tests tomorrow. -ss -- 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>