Re: Maybe a VM bug in 2.4.18-18 from RH 8.0?

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:48:04AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> you should because it seems you didn't realize how my code works. the
> algorithm is autotuned at boot and depends on the zone sizes, and it
> applies to the dma zone too with respect to the normal zone, the highmem
> case is just one of the cases that the fix for the general problem
> resolves, and you're totally wrong saying that mlocking 700m on a 4G box
> could kill it. I call it the per-claszone point of view watermark. If
> you are capable of highmem (mlock users are) you must left 100M or 10M
> or 10G free on the normal zone (depends on the watermark setting tuned
> at boot that is calculated in function of the zone sizes) etc... so it
> doesn't matter if you mlock 700M or 700G, it can't kill it. The split
> doesn't matter at all. 2.5 misses this important fix too btw.
> If you ignore this bugfix people will notice and there's no other way
> to fix it completely (unless you want to drop the zone-normal and
> zone-dma enterely, actually zone-dma matters much less because even if
> it exists basically nobody uses it).

This problem is not universal; pure GFP_KERNEL allocations are the main
problem here. The fix is necessary for anti-google bits but not a
panacea for all workloads. The issue here is basically forkbombs (i.e.
databases) with potentially high cross-process sharing.

Bill