From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756660AbbFQNYk (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:24:40 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41329 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754695AbbFQNYd (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:24:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:24:27 +0200 From: Michal Hocko 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 Subject: Re: [RFC -v2] panic_on_oom_timeout Message-ID: <20150617132427.GG25056@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150617125127.GF25056@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs