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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>