On Wed 17-06-15 14:51:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> The important thing is to decide what is the reasonable way forward. We
> have two two implementations of panic based timeout. So we should decide
And the most obvious question, of course.
- Should we add a panic timeout at all?
> - Should be the timeout bound to panic_on_oom?
> - Should we care about constrained OOM contexts?
> - If yes should they use the same timeout?
> - If yes should each memcg be able to define its own timeout?
^ no
> My thinking is that it should be bound to panic_on_oom=1 only until we
> hear from somebody actually asking for a constrained oom and even then
> do not allow for too large configuration space (e.g. no per-memcg
> timeout) or have separate mempolicy vs. memcg timeouts.
>
> Let's start simple and make things more complicated later!
--
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>