Re: Misleading OOM messages

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 14 May 2009, Dave Hansen wrote:

> The problem I have with that is that it also doesn't tell the whole.
> story.  It's the end symptom when *just* before we OOM, but it doesn't
> characterize the whole thing very well.  It's like saying the Titanic
> sunk because "too much water onboard." :)  It's true, but it
> concentrates a bit too much on the end state.
> 
> To me, it's a question of how much information we can get out in a line
> or two on the console.  Is something like this better?
>         
>         "Unable to satisfy memory allocation request and not making
>         progress reclaiming from other sources."
> 
> We can't exactly go spitting out an entire tutorial in dmesg, but could
> we stick a short URL in there?  Like http://linux-mm.org/OOM perhaps?
> 

I think switching all the oom killer messages to be "no available memory" 
as it is in the MPOL_BIND case would be the best alternative.  We 
currently use "out of memory" even for cpusets, for example, when it 
happens because it cannot accommodate any more hardwall allocations while 
there may be an abundance of memory elsewhere that it cannot access.  I 
also think "no available memory" makes more sense than "out of memory" 
when describing situations where we're at or below the minimum watermarks 
for all allowable zones.  Either that or "no allowable memory".
--
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/