Hi Michal, On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:09:21AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 26-10-15 13:40:49, Aristeu Rozanski wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:20:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Would it make more sense to distinguish different parts of the OOM > > > report by loglevel properly? > > > pr_err - killed task report > > > pr_warning - oom invocation + memory info > > > pr_notice - task list > > > pr_info - stack trace > > > > That'd work, yes, but I'd think the stack trace would be pr_debug. At a > > point that you suspect the OOM killer isn't doing the right thing picking > > up tasks and you need more information. > > Stack trace should be independent on the oom victim selection because > the selection should be as much deterministic as possible - so it should > only depend on the memory consumption. I do agree that the exact trace > is not very useful for the (maybe) majority of OOM reports. I am trying > to remember when it was really useful the last time and have trouble to > find an example. So I would tend to agree that pr_debug would me more > suitable. Only problem I see so far with this approach is that it'll require reworing show_stack() on all architectures in order to be able to pass and use log level and I'm wondering if it's something people will find useful for other uses. -- Aristeu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
