From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f70.google.com (mail-it0-f70.google.com [209.85.214.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E346B0038 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:19:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-it0-f70.google.com with SMTP id h10so44444588ith.2 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 01:19:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com. [119.145.14.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 96si1403578ioh.96.2017.02.10.01.19.49 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 01:19:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC] 3.10 kernel- oom with about 24G free memory References: <9a22aefd-dfb8-2e4c-d280-fc172893bcb4@huawei.com> <20170209132628.GI10257@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170209134131.GJ10257@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170210070930.GA9346@dhcp22.suse.cz> <7d01fea5-66d6-b6ac-918d-19ec8a15dbaf@huawei.com> <20170210085232.GD10893@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Yisheng Xie Message-ID: <42e61739-ddfb-e13e-69e0-d1c1ac948a6d@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:15:59 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170210085232.GD10893@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tetsuo Handa , Hanjun Guo Hi Michal, Thanks for comment! On 2017/2/10 16:52, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 10-02-17 16:48:58, Yisheng Xie wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Thanks for comment! >> On 2017/2/10 15:09, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Fri 10-02-17 09:13:58, Yisheng Xie wrote: >>>> hi Michal, >>>> Thanks for your comment. >>>> >>>> On 2017/2/9 21:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >>>>>> OK, so this is a memcg OOM killer which panics because the configuration >>>>>> says so. The OOM report doesn't say so and that is the bug. dump_header >>>>>> is memcg aware and mem_cgroup_out_of_memory initializes oom_control >>>>>> properly. Is this Vanilla kernel? >>>> >>>> That means we should raise the limit of that memcg to avoid memcg OOM killer, right? >>> >>> Why do you configure the system to panic on memcg OOM in the first >>> place. This is a wrong thing to do in 99% of cases. >> >> For our production think it should use reboot to recovery the system when OOM, >> instead of killing user's key process. Maybe not the right thing. > > I can understand that for the global oom killer but not for memcg. You > can recover the oom even without killing any process. You can simply > increase the limit from the userspace when the oom event is triggered. So you mean set oom_kill_disable and increase the limit from userspace when memcg under_oom, right? Thanks Yisheng Xie. > > Trigerring the panic on memcg oom killer is both dangerous and most > probably something you do not want. > -- 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