Received: by 2002:ac0:98c7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id g7-v6csp6098144imd; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fyjWlWcSzV/mEg3Gx28zmGIp/9I6D7a4Dbd4QosxpII+21F9BVq4LCqWENq7vxMaIANKzT X-Received: by 2002:a62:e30a:: with SMTP id g10-v6mr3501898pfh.151.1540993898530; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1540993898; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=VJKIERvqnOkeq76N+R74xqHCqG+DuWxIrr72Z8pjPhthXD3U/C8cDk+3TMM8povshj EGB01nVTsefb/FM+cOw+VXerxlm8Y4V0SvB9t1XAFEEZPAJwpvsNp3kRFb+maCUh+Y8k ZAa4Xio7Q+nhpUGOFNBJfxonvPepQD3GCXRDoPExTKjnJjnBLSRBEVNN30x1QOlfs8FS KcTVuVD8gtMxf6TDmVu1715q0USft9BEzBshBVA8HBL2smVKi7fY5iJ8l1UJEHx7sdHJ nPReyMscbwoE4Cnfp7ymUjqd5OvvEChD47nE5Aol2h83Vt0V7GsBgyFl2WdPSWg9YK+A TMpg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=5MSxsJlu3HUIHVJEECS5QAz2sQNCJR6/FGLpbEtOIac=; b=Ii+DYuDILBiqslHnstz9N8TwWEomyZmDTVHZVOBfsN4U4WCFP49vC0ZWHCdy4+/RVY C0T6jLHgIePxmNAwF1EbCsJnSJp1GSDEP3hZxyxZPxJ4w4IiGIhgs908PxWF5OlLotbz eT1c3s+qz7iCVf33mLt/uDirxhZLbo12TJRC4yfOtaYtMKIoTH1o6iLM1xRvwZ7qQiwm z6TuoJtw4D4p+07rV4Gq0eek+SU7JJbq6Rl1edCVjvBfyZkTQO8J3jN0lRFagfKNc+iP utzSVz3N6AJYPPBgeQH6x0RMvM0iW5Gepc0LjDSA6bGldgdRxrqA7mQyOdtGSyd3ZCFs Kbwg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f69-v6si20291745pgc.304.2018.10.31.06.51.23; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729351AbeJaWs6 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 31 Oct 2018 18:48:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59558 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729288AbeJaWs6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2018 18:48:58 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89271AF4C; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:50:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:50:49 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: ufo19890607@gmail.com Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, guro@fb.com, yang.s@alibaba-inc.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yuzhoujian@didichuxing.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 1/2] Reorganize the oom report in dump_header Message-ID: <20181031135049.GO32673@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1538226387-16600-1-git-send-email-ufo19890607@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1538226387-16600-1-git-send-email-ufo19890607@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat 29-09-18 21:06:26, ufo19890607@gmail.com wrote: [...] > Changes since v14: > - add the dump_oom_summary for the single line output of oom context. > - fix the null pointer in the dump_header. I do not remember details about this null ptr but the fix you seemed to have done is [...] > +static void dump_oom_summary(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *victim) > +{ > + /* one line summary of the oom killer context. */ > + pr_info("oom-kill:constraint=%s,nodemask=%*pbl", > + oom_constraint_text[oc->constraint], > + nodemask_pr_args(oc->nodemask)); > + cpuset_print_current_mems_allowed(); > + pr_cont(",task=%s,pid=%d,uid=%d\n", victim->comm, victim->pid, > + from_kuid(&init_user_ns, task_uid(victim))); > +} > + > /* > * Number of OOM victims in flight > */ > @@ -951,6 +960,8 @@ static void oom_kill_process(struct oom_control *oc, const char *message) > > if (__ratelimit(&oom_rs)) > dump_header(oc, p); > + if (oc) > + dump_oom_summary(oc, victim); > this? If yes then this is bogus because oc is never NULL. Besides that, you used to have this one line summary in dump_header which looks much better fit to me than oom_kill_process. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs