On Wed 17-06-15 15:24:27, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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! Any more ideas/thoughts on this? -- 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>