2017-05-22 10:11 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On 19.05.2017 19:34, Roman Guschin wrote: >> >> 2017-05-19 15:22 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Khlebnikov >> <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> From a user's point of view the difference between "oom" and "max" >> becomes really vague here, >> assuming that "max" is described almost in the same words: >> >> "The number of times the cgroup's memory usage was >> about to go over the max boundary. If direct reclaim >> fails to bring it down, the OOM killer is invoked." >> >> I wonder, if it's better to fix the existing "oom" value to show what >> it has to show, according to docs, >> rather than to introduce a new one? >> > > Nope, they are different. I think we should rephase documentation somehow > > low - count of reclaims below low level > high - count of post-allocation reclaims above high level > max - count of direct reclaims > oom - count of failed direct reclaims > oom_kill - count of oom killer invocations and killed processes Definitely worth it. Also, I would prefer to reserve "oom" for number of oom victims, and introduce something like "reclaim_failed". It will be consistent with existing vmstat. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
