From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C8DB6B007B for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:14:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o1G8ENhJ027486 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:14:23 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA6545DE4E for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:14:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F170F45DE4D for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:14:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AEA1DB803E for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:14:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF1C1DB803F for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:14:22 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:10:51 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on_oom mode Message-Id: <20100216171051.aebbffe5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100216080817.GK5723@laptop> References: <20100216062035.GA5723@laptop> <20100216072047.GH5723@laptop> <20100216080817.GK5723@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Andrea Arcangeli , Balbir Singh , Lubos Lunak , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:08:17 +1100 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:53:33PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > > Because it is inconsistent at the user's expense, it has never panicked > > > > the machine for memory controller ooms, so why is a cpuset or mempolicy > > > > constrained oom conditions any different? > > > > > > Well memory controller was added later, wasn't it? So if you think > > > that's a bug then a fix to panic on memory controller ooms might > > > be in order. > > > > > > > But what about the existing memcg users who set panic_on_oom == 2 and > > don't expect the memory controller to be influenced by that? > > But that was a bug in the addition of the memory controller. Either the > documentation should be fixed, or the implementation should be fixed. > I'll add a documentation to memcg. As "When you exhaust memory resource under memcg, oom-killer may be invoked. But in this case, the system never panics even when panic_on_oom is set." Maybe I should add "memcg_oom_notify (netlink message or file-decriptor or some". Because memcg's oom is virtual oom, automatic management software can show report to users and can do fail-over. I'll consider something useful for memcg oom-fail-over instead of panic. In the simplest case, cgroup's notiifer file descriptor can be used. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org