On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > Please don't. I had a chance to talk with customer support team and talked > about panic_on_oom briefly. I understood that panic_on_oom_alyways+kdump > is the strongest tool for investigating customer's OOM situtation and do > the best advice to them. panic_on_oom_always+kdump is the 100% information > as snapshot when oom-killer happens. Then, it's easy to investigate and > explain what is wront. They sometimes discover memory leak (by some prorietary > driver) or miss-configuration of the system (as using unnecessary bounce buffer.) > Ok, I'm not looking to cause your customers unnecessary grief by removing an option that they use, even though the same effect is possible by setting all tasks to OOM_DISABLE. I'll remove this patch in the next revision. > Then, please leave panic_on_oom=always. > Even with mempolicy or cpuset 's OOM, we need panic_on_oom=always option. > And yes, I'll add something similar to memcg. freeze_at_oom or something. > Memcg isn't a special case here, it should also panic the machine if panic_on_oom == 2, so if we aren't going to remove this option then I agree with Nick that we need to panic from mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() as well. Some users use cpusets, for example, for the same effect of memory isolation as you use memcg, so panicking in one scenario and not the other is inconsistent. -- 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>