From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on_oom mode
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:02:28 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1002160058470.17122@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100216092311.86bceb0c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > You don't understand that the behavior has changed ever since
> > mempolicy-constrained oom conditions are now affected by a compulsory
> > panic_on_oom mode, please see the patch description. It's absolutely
> > insane for a single sysctl mode to panic the machine anytime a cpuset or
> > mempolicy runs out of memory and is more prone to user error from setting
> > it without fully understanding the ramifications than any use it will ever
> > do. The kernel already provides a mechanism for doing this, OOM_DISABLE.
> > if you want your cpuset or mempolicy to risk panicking the machine, set
> > all tasks that share its mems or nodes, respectively, to OOM_DISABLE.
> > This is no different from the memory controller being immune to such
> > panic_on_oom conditions, stop believing that it is the only mechanism used
> > in the kernel to do memory isolation.
> >
> You don't explain why "we _have to_ remove API which is used"
>
First, I'm not stating that we _have_ to remove anything, this is a patch
proposal that is open for review.
Second, I believe we _should_ remove panic_on_oom == 2 because it's no
longer being used as it was documented: as we've increased the exposure of
the oom killer (memory controller, pagefault ooms, now mempolicy tasklist
scanning), we constantly have to re-evaluate the semantics of this option
while a well-understood tunable with a long history, OOM_DISABLE, already
does the equivalent. The downside of getting this wrong is that the
machine panics when it shouldn't have because of an unintended consequence
of the mode being enabled (a mempolicy ooms, for example, that was created
by the user). When reconsidering its semantics, I'd personally opt on the
safe side and make sure the machine doesn't panic unnecessarily and
instead require users to use OOM_DISABLE for tasks they do not want to be
oom killed.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-16 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-15 22:19 [patch -mm 0/9 v2] oom killer rewrite David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 1/9 v2] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:14 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 2/9 v2] oom: sacrifice child with highest badness score for parent David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:15 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 3/9 v2] oom: select task from tasklist for mempolicy ooms David Rientjes
2010-02-23 6:31 ` Balbir Singh
2010-02-23 8:17 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on_oom mode David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 0:14 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 9:02 ` David Rientjes [this message]
2010-02-16 23:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 23:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:01 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:31 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:54 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 1:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 1:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:37 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:34 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 2:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 3:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 9:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 9:52 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-17 22:04 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-22 5:31 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-02-22 6:15 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-22 11:42 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-02-22 20:59 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-22 23:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-22 20:55 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 2:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16 6:20 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 6:59 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:20 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 7:53 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 8:08 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 8:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 8:42 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 5/9 v2] oom: badness heuristic rewrite David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 6/9 v2] oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:28 ` Alan Cox
2010-02-15 22:35 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 7/9 v2] oom: replace sysctls with quick mode David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:28 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 8:58 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 8/9 v2] oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations David Rientjes
2010-02-15 23:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 0:10 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 0:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 1:13 ` [patch] mm: add comment about deprecation of __GFP_NOFAIL David Rientjes
2010-02-16 1:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-16 7:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 5:32 ` [patch -mm 8/9 v2] oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-16 7:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 6:44 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 7:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 7:53 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 8:25 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-16 23:48 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:03 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-17 0:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-02-17 0:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-23 11:24 ` Balbir Singh
2010-02-23 21:12 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-15 22:20 ` [patch -mm 9/9 v2] oom: remove unnecessary code and cleanup David Rientjes
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=alpine.DEB.2.00.1002160058470.17122@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
--to=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=l.lunak@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/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