[Balbir Singh - Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 02:55:32PM +0530]
| WU Fengguang wrote:
| > On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:48:31PM +0800, WU Fengguang wrote:
| >> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 11:31:09PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
| >>> Andrew Morton wrote:
| >>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:00:12 +0530 "Balbir Singh" <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
| >>>>> Shouldn't we just not stop vm accounting for kernel threads?
| >>>>>
| >>>> Could be. It'd help heaps if we knew which patch in -mm caused
| >>>> this, but from a quick peek it seems to me that mainline should be
| >>>> vulnerable as well.
| >>> Thats a valid point. It would be interesting to see what the overcommit
| >>> setting was, when the panic occurred.
| >> FYI, I do have nondefault overcommit settings:
| >>
| >> vm.overcommit_memory = 2
| >> vm.lowmem_reserve_ratio = 1 1
| >
| > Yes, the bug disappears when changing to default overcommit_memory!
| >
|
| Great! So the problem might have existed for some time, but we never
| saw it due to default over commit values? Were you using these values
| for over commit even before?
|
| --
| Warm Regards,
| Balbir Singh
| Linux Technology Center
| IBM, ISTL
So the problem is that __vm_enough_memory is just _not_ capable
to be called from a thread with OVERCOMMIT_NEVER and Fengguang's
patch does fix it. The scenario Fengguang show us is growing
from keventd that starts a new user task. So Fengguang's patch
seems right to me ;)
Cyrill
-
