Re: [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on_oom mode

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:08:17 +1100
Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:53:33PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > 
> > > > Because it is inconsistent at the user's expense, it has never panicked 
> > > > the machine for memory controller ooms, so why is a cpuset or mempolicy 
> > > > constrained oom conditions any different?
> > > 
> > > Well memory controller was added later, wasn't it? So if you think
> > > that's a bug then a fix to panic on memory controller ooms might
> > > be in order.
> > > 
> > 
> > But what about the existing memcg users who set panic_on_oom == 2 and 
> > don't expect the memory controller to be influenced by that?
> 
> But that was a bug in the addition of the memory controller. Either the
> documentation should be fixed, or the implementation should be fixed.
> 
I'll add a documentation to memcg. As

"When you exhaust memory resource under memcg, oom-killer may be invoked.
 But in this case, the system never panics even when panic_on_oom is set."

Maybe I should add "memcg_oom_notify (netlink message or file-decriptor or some".
Because memcg's oom is virtual oom, automatic management software can show
report to users and can do fail-over. I'll consider something useful for
memcg oom-fail-over instead of panic. In the simplest case, cgroup's notiifer
file descriptor can be used.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/