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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190826193638.6638-1-echron@arista.com> <20190827071523.GR7538@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAM3twVRZfarAP6k=LLWH0jEJXu8C8WZKgMXCFKBZdRsTVVFrUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190828065955.GB7386@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAM3twVR_OLffQ1U-SgQOdHxuByLNL5sicfnObimpGpPQ1tJ0FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190829071105.GQ28313@dhcp22.suse.cz> <297cf049-d92e-f13a-1386-403553d86401@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20190829115608.GD28313@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAM3twVSZm69U8Sg+VxQ67DeycHUMC5C3_f2EpND4_LC4UHx7BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190829161759.GK28313@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20190829161759.GK28313@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Edward Chron <echron@arista.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:35:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM3twVS+yAyBAzNHs7C8NLVXT6MmSamemXNMpmvmkzkFwu5b_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] OOM Debug print selection and additional information
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:18 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu 29-08-19 08:03:19, Edward Chron wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 4:56 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Or simply provide a hook with the oom_control to be called to report
> > > without replacing the whole oom killer behavior. That is not necessary.
> >
> > For very simple addition, to add a line of output this works.
>
> Why would a hook be limited to small stuff?

It could be larger but the few items we added were just a line or
two of output.

The vmalloc, slabs and processes can print many entries so we
added a control for those.

>
> > It would still be nice to address the fact the existing OOM Report prints
> > all of the user processes or none. It would be nice to add some control
> > for that. That's what we did.
>
> TBH, I am not really convinced partial taks list is desirable nor easy
> to configure. What is the criterion? oom_score (with potentially unstable
> metric)? Rss? Something else?

We used an estimate of the memory footprint of the process:
rss, swap pages and page table pages.

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs