Re: [oom]: [0/4] fix OOM deadlock running OAST

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:07:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Well none, really.  This problem is now fixed, is it not?
>> It would be nice to fix up the unrelated issue of putting unbacked pages
>> onto the LRU.  Could do that by adding backing_dev_info.not_on_lru, check
>> that in the various places where we add pages to the LRU.
>> Or, conceivably, do it lazily: take these pages off the LRU if we encounter
>> them in page reclaim.  This might be a net win - do extra work for the rare
>> case, less work for the common case.
>> Something like this:

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:24:35PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> To me, this resembles reworking the LRU removal bits. I'll flesh out
> the example you posted in the way you've suggested (via backing_dev_info).
> Thanks.

Also, you mentioned at one point extending committed memory accounting
to account for unreclaimable pages (the term you suggested). Would you
also like that to be looked into? It might take longer than overnight
to brew up, mostly due to testing turnaround.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/