On Fri 22-04-22 05:44:13, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:27:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > We already do that in some form. We dump unreclaimable slabs if they > > consume more memory than user pages on LRUs. We also dump all slab > > caches with some objects. Why is this approach not good? Should we tweak > > the condition to dump or should we limit the dump? These are reasonable > > questions to ask. Your patch has dropped those without explaining any > > of the motivation. > > > > I am perfectly OK to modify should_dump_unreclaim_slab to dump even if > > the slab memory consumption is lower. Also dumping small caches with > > handful of objects can be excessive. > > > > Wrt to shrinkers I really do not know what kind of shrinkers data would > > be useful to dump and when. Therefore I am asking about examples. > > Look, I've given you the sample That sample is of no use as it doesn't really show how the additional information is useful to analyze the allocation failure. I thought we have agreed on that. You still haven't given any example where the information is useful. So I do not really see any reason to change the existing output. > output you asked for and explained repeatedly my > rationale and you haven't directly responded; Your rationale is that we need more data and I do agree but it is not clear which data and under which conditions. > if you have a reason you're > against the patches please say so, but please give your reasoning. I have expressed that already, I believe, but let me repeat. I do not like altering the oom report without a justification on how this new output is useful. You have failed to explained that so far. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
