From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752786AbbG2Lzu (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:55:50 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:34915 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751358AbbG2Lzs (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:55:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:55:44 +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: <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> 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 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