On Thu 25-08-11 17:18:18, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/25, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Wed 24-08-11 12:31:26, David Rientjes wrote: > > > > > > That's obviously false since we call oom_killer_disable() in > > > freeze_processes() to disable the oom killer from ever being called in the > > > first place, so this is something you need to resolve with Rafael before > > > you cause more machines to panic. > > > > I didn't mean suspend/resume path (that is protected by oom_killer_disabled) > > so the patch doesn't make any change. > > Confused... freeze_processes() does try_to_freeze_tasks() before > oom_killer_disable() ? Yes you are right, I must have been blind. Now I see the point. We do not want to panic while we are suspending and the memory is really low just because all the userspace is already in the the fridge. Sorry for confusion. I still do not follow the oom_killer_disable note from David, though. > > Oleg. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>