On Mon 06-08-18 09:15:29, Tejun Heo wrote: > mem_cgroup_print_oom_info() currently prints the same info for cgroup1 > and cgroup2 OOMs. It doesn't make much sense on cgroup2, which > doesn't use memsw or separate kmem accounting - the information > reported is both superflous and insufficient. This patch updates the > memcg OOM messages on cgroup2 so that > > * It prints memory and swap usages and limits used on cgroup2. > > * It shows the same information as memory.stat. > > I took out the recursive printing for cgroup2 because the amount of > output could be a lot and the benefits aren't clear. An example dump > follows. > > [ 40.854197] stress invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x6000c0(GFP_KERNEL), nodemask=(null), order=0, oo0 > [ 40.855239] stress cpuset=/ mems_allowed=0 > [ 40.855665] CPU: 6 PID: 1990 Comm: stress Not tainted 4.18.0-rc7-work+ #281 > [ 40.856260] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 > [ 40.857000] Call Trace: > [ 40.857222] dump_stack+0x5e/0x8b > [ 40.857517] dump_header+0x74/0x2fc > [ 40.859106] oom_kill_process+0x225/0x490 > [ 40.859449] out_of_memory+0x111/0x530 > [ 40.859780] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x4b/0x80 > [ 40.860161] mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize+0x3ff/0x450 > [ 40.861334] pagefault_out_of_memory+0x2f/0x74 > [ 40.861718] __do_page_fault+0x3de/0x460 > [ 40.862347] page_fault+0x1e/0x30 > [ 40.862636] RIP: 0033:0x5566cd5aadd0 > [ 40.862940] Code: 0f 84 3c 02 00 00 8b 54 24 0c 31 c0 85 d2 0f 94 c0 89 04 24 41 83 fd 02 0f 8f f6 > [ 40.864558] RSP: 002b:00007ffd979ced40 EFLAGS: 00010206 > [ 40.865005] RAX: 0000000001f4f000 RBX: 00007f3a397d8010 RCX: 00007f3a397d8010 > [ 40.865615] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000004001000 RDI: 0000000000000000 > [ 40.866220] RBP: 00005566cd5abbb4 R08: 00000000ffffffff R09: 0000000000000000 > [ 40.866845] R10: 0000000000000022 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: ffffffffffffffff > [ 40.867452] R13: 0000000000000002 R14: 0000000000001000 R15: 0000000004000000 > [ 40.868091] Task in /test-cgroup killed as a result of limit of /test-cgroup > [ 40.868726] memory 33554432 (max 33554432) > [ 40.869096] swap 0 > [ 40.869280] anon 32845824 > [ 40.869519] file 0 > [ 40.869730] kernel_stack 0 > [ 40.869966] slab 163840 > [ 40.870191] sock 0 > [ 40.870374] shmem 0 > [ 40.870566] file_mapped 0 > [ 40.870801] file_dirty 0 > [ 40.871039] file_writeback 0 > [ 40.871292] inactive_anon 0 > [ 40.871542] active_anon 32944128 > [ 40.871821] inactive_file 0 > [ 40.872077] active_file 0 > [ 40.872309] unevictable 0 > [ 40.872543] slab_reclaimable 0 > [ 40.872806] slab_unreclaimable 163840 > [ 40.873136] pgfault 8085 > [ 40.873358] pgmajfault 0 > [ 40.873589] pgrefill 0 > [ 40.873800] pgscan 0 > [ 40.873991] pgsteal 0 > [ 40.874202] pgactivate 0 > [ 40.874424] pgdeactivate 0 > [ 40.874663] pglazyfree 0 > [ 40.874881] pglazyfreed 0 > [ 40.875121] workingset_refault 0 > [ 40.875401] workingset_activate 0 > [ 40.875689] workingset_nodereclaim 0 Is there really any reason to have each couner on a seprate line? This is just too much of an output for a single oom report. I do get why you are not really thrilled by the hierarchical numbers but can we keep counters in a single line please? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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
