lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC -v2] panic_on_oom_timeout
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-17 16:01    [W:0.095 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site