From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC -v2] panic_on_oom_timeout
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:11:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150617121104.GD25056@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150609170310.GA8990@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Hi,
I was thinking about this and I am more and more convinced that we
shouldn't care about panic_on_oom=2 configuration for now and go with
the simplest solution first. I have revisited my original patch and
replaced delayed work by a timer based on the feedback from Tetsuo.
I think we can rely on timers. A downside would be that we cannot dump
the full OOM report from the IRQ context because we rely on task_lock
which is not IRQ safe. But I do not think we really need it. An OOM
report will be in the log already most of the time and show_mem will
tell us the current memory situation.
What do you think?
---
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-17 12:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-09 17:03 [RFC] panic_on_oom_timeout Michal Hocko
2015-06-10 12:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-10 14:28 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-10 15:56 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-12 15:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-15 12:45 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-16 13:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-16 13:46 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-17 12:16 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-17 12:36 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-11 13:12 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-11 14:18 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-11 14:45 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-11 15:38 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-17 12:11 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2015-06-17 12:31 ` [RFC -v2] panic_on_oom_timeout Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-17 12:51 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-17 13:24 ` Michal Hocko
2015-07-29 11:55 ` Michal Hocko
2015-07-29 13:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-17 13:59 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-17 15:41 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-19 11:30 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-19 15:36 ` Michal Hocko
2015-06-19 18:54 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-06-20 7:57 ` Tetsuo Handa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150617121104.GD25056@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox