On Fri 10-02-17 17:15:59, Yisheng Xie wrote: > 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? yes -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
