<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEEDINFO " title="NEEDINFO --- - [ILK/SNB]igt/gem_evict_everything/forked-swapping-multifd-mempressure-normal causes OOM killer" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69247#c17">Comment # 17</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEEDINFO " title="NEEDINFO --- - [ILK/SNB]igt/gem_evict_everything/forked-swapping-multifd-mempressure-normal causes OOM killer" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69247">bug 69247</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:daniel@ffwll.ch" title="Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>"> Daniel Vetter</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=69247#c16">comment #16</a>) > Heh, I actually had a patch with similar intent to push the batch_size loop > into the shrinkers. I think the logic makes more sense outside of the actual shrinker so that we can take memory pressure (i.e. how many loops through the entire reclaim dance we've done so far) into account. We probably shouldn't use the minimal reclaim size if memory is still easy to get, but ramp it up aggressively if memory is getting really tight. As soon as we have testing results on this patch (I've asked QA to also test this a bit on their OOM-prone byt platform) I'll send and rfc to mm. btw for testing the patch: Please test on all affected platforms so that we really know it's robust.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>