From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27126 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2009 06:24:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 27116 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2009 06:24:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (HELO smtp1.linux-foundation.org) (140.211.169.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:24:46 +0000 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id nA46ObpQ006104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:24:39 -0800 Received: from y.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with SMTP id nA46OYBq006206; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:24:36 -0800 Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:24:00 -0000 From: Andrew Morton To: Justin Mattock Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes Subject: Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0 Message-Id: <20091103222432.4a94bd8f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00059.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:29:29 -0800 Justin Mattock wrote: > Hello, > I'm not sure how to handle this, > while compiling firefox-3.6b1.source > I get this with the default compiling options, > as well as custom: > > ... > > active_anon:2360492kB inactive_anon:590196kB active_file:84kB 2.8GB of anonymous memory > [ 532.942508] Free swap = 0kB > [ 532.942510] Total swap = 431632kB 430MB of swap, all used up. That's a genuine OOM. Something (presumably cc1plus) has consumed waaaay too much memory, quite possibly leaked it. It would help if the oom-killer were to print some information about the oom-killed process's memory footprint.