Re: More OOM problems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:37:36AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > > Sounds like SLUB. SLAB would use order-0 as long as things fit. I would
> > > hope for SLUB to fallback to order-0 (or order-1 for 8kB) instead of
> > > OOM, though. Guess not...
> >
> > It's already trying to do that, perhaps just some flags need to be
> > changed?
> 
> SLUB tries order-N and falls back to order 0 on failure.

Right it tries, but Linus apparently got an OOM in the order-N
allocation. So somehow the flag combination that it passes first
is not preventing the OOM killer.

-Andi

--
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>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]