Re: Google's mm problem - not reproduced on 2.4.13
Ben Smith (email@example.com)
Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:12:00 -0800
> On October 31, 2001 09:45 pm, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 09:39:12PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>>On October 31, 2001 07:06 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>>>I just tried your test program with 2.4.13, 2 Gig, and it ran
>>>>without problems. Could you try that over there and see if you
>>>>get the same result? If it does run, the next move would be to
>>>>check with 3.5 Gig.
>>>Ben reports that his test with 2 Gig memory runs fine, as it does
>>>for me, but that it locks up tight with 3.5 Gig, requiring power
>>>cycle. Since I only have 2 Gig here I can't reproduce that (yet).
>>are you sure it isn't an oom condition. can you reproduce on
>>2.4.14pre5aa1? mainline (at least before pre6) could deadlock with
>>too much mlocked memory.
> I don't know, I can't reproduce it here, I don't have enough memory.
My test application gets killed (I believe by the oom handler). dmesg
complains about a lot of 0-order allocation failures. For this test,
I'm running with 2.4.14pre5aa1, 3.5gb of RAM, 2 PIII 1Ghz.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/