Re: [RFC -v2] panic_on_oom_timeout

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>]

On Wed 17-06-15 15:24:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 17-06-15 14:51:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > The important thing is to decide what is the reasonable way forward. We
> > have two two implementations of panic based timeout. So we should decide
> 
> And the most obvious question, of course.
> - Should we add a panic timeout at all?
> 
> > - Should be the timeout bound to panic_on_oom?
> > - Should we care about constrained OOM contexts?
> > - If yes should they use the same timeout?
> > - If yes should each memcg be able to define its own timeout?
>        ^ no
>  
> > My thinking is that it should be bound to panic_on_oom=1 only until we
> > hear from somebody actually asking for a constrained oom and even then
> > do not allow for too large configuration space (e.g. no per-memcg
> > timeout) or have separate mempolicy vs. memcg timeouts.
> > 
> > Let's start simple and make things more complicated later!

Any more ideas/thoughts on this?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>