[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100216062035.GA5723@laptop>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:20:35 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm 4/9 v2] oom: remove compulsory panic_on_oom mode
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 02:20:09PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> If /proc/sys/vm/panic_on_oom is set to 2, the kernel will panic
> regardless of whether the memory allocation is constrained by either a
> mempolicy or cpuset.
>
> Since mempolicy-constrained out of memory conditions now iterate through
> the tasklist and select a task to kill, it is possible to panic the
> machine if all tasks sharing the same mempolicy nodes (including those
> with default policy, they may allocate anywhere) or cpuset mems have
> /proc/pid/oom_adj values of OOM_DISABLE. This is functionally equivalent
> to the compulsory panic_on_oom setting of 2, so the mode is removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
What is the point of removing it, though? If it doesn't significantly
help some future patch, just leave it in. It's not worth breaking the
user/kernel interface just to remove 3 trivial lines of code.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists