From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751332AbdH1JnS (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 05:43:18 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43388 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284AbdH1JnR (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 05:43:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:43:16 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Subject: timeout for memory offline Message-ID: <20170828094316.GF17097@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 Hi Kamezawa, I've been wondering why do we have a hardcoded 120s timeout for offline_pages. This goes all the way down to when the offlining has been implemented. I am asking because I have seen many cases where memory offline fails just because of the timeout on a large machines under heavy memory load during offline operation. So I am really wondering whether we should make the timeout configurable or just remove it altogether. I would be more inclined for the later but there might have been an explicit reason for the timeout which is not clear to me. Could you clarify? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs