On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:54:50 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > 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.
>
Hmm, I have a few reason to add special behavior to memcg rather than panic.
- freeze_at_oom is enough.
If OOM can be notified, the management daemon can do useful jobs. Shutdown
all other cgroups or migrate them to other host and do kdump.
- memcg's oom is not very complicated.
Because we just counts RSS+FileCache
But, Hmm...I'd like to go this way.
1. At first, support panic_on_oom=2 in memcg.
2. Second, I'll add OOM-notifier and freeze_at_oom to memcg.
and don't call memcg_out_of_memory in oom_kill.c in this case. Because
we don't kill anything. Taking coredumps of all procs in memcg is not
very difficult.
I need to discuss with memcg guys. But this will be a way to go, I think
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>