From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08436B0253 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so22640575wib.0 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 04:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com. [209.85.212.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g7si43328333wjy.213.2015.07.29.04.55.47 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 04:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so217365291wib.1 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 04:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:55:44 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC -v2] panic_on_oom_timeout Message-ID: <20150729115543.GG15801@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20150609170310.GA8990@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150617121104.GD25056@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201506172131.EFE12444.JMLFOSVOHFOtFQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20150617125127.GF25056@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150617132427.GG25056@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150617132427.GG25056@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.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: email@kvack.org