Hi Michal, Thanks for comment! On 2017/2/10 16:52, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 10-02-17 16:48:58, Yisheng Xie wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Thanks for comment! >> On 2017/2/10 15:09, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Fri 10-02-17 09:13:58, Yisheng Xie wrote: >>>> hi Michal, >>>> Thanks for your comment. >>>> >>>> On 2017/2/9 21:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >>>>>> OK, so this is a memcg OOM killer which panics because the configuration >>>>>> says so. The OOM report doesn't say so and that is the bug. dump_header >>>>>> is memcg aware and mem_cgroup_out_of_memory initializes oom_control >>>>>> properly. Is this Vanilla kernel? >>>> >>>> That means we should raise the limit of that memcg to avoid memcg OOM killer, right? >>> >>> Why do you configure the system to panic on memcg OOM in the first >>> place. This is a wrong thing to do in 99% of cases. >> >> For our production think it should use reboot to recovery the system when OOM, >> instead of killing user's key process. Maybe not the right thing. > > I can understand that for the global oom killer but not for memcg. You > can recover the oom even without killing any process. You can simply > increase the limit from the userspace when the oom event is triggered. So you mean set oom_kill_disable and increase the limit from userspace when memcg under_oom, right? Thanks Yisheng Xie. > > Trigerring the panic on memcg oom killer is both dangerous and most > probably something you do not want. > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
