From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752216AbdBJJZG (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:25:06 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42104 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752106AbdBJJYi (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:24:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:24:35 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Yisheng Xie Cc: Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tetsuo Handa , Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [RFC] 3.10 kernel- oom with about 24G free memory Message-ID: <20170210092435.GG10893@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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> <42e61739-ddfb-e13e-69e0-d1c1ac948a6d@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42e61739-ddfb-e13e-69e0-d1c1ac948a6d@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 10-02-17 17:15:59, Yisheng Xie wrote: > 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? yes -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs