From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:28:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] support for oom_die In-Reply-To: <20060411142909.1899c4c4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20060411142909.1899c4c4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > I think 2.6 kernel is very robust against OOM situation but sometimes > it occurs. Yes, oom_kill works enough and exit oom situation, *when* > the system wants to survive. > > First, crash-dump is merged (to -mm?). So panic at OOM can be a method to > preserve *all* information at OOM. Current OOM killer kills process by SIGKILL, > this doesn't preserve any information about OOM situation. Just message log tell > something and we have to imagine what happend. > > Second, considering clustering system, it has a failover node replacement > system. Because oom_killer tends to kill system slowly, one by one, to detect > it and do failover(or not) at OOM is tend to be difficult. (as far as I know) > Panic at OOM is useful in such system because failover system can replace > the node immediately. > > I'm sorry if this kind of discussion has been setteled in past. A user process can cause an oops by using too much memory? Would it not be better to terminate the rogue process instead? Otherwise any user can bring down the system? -- 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