On Tue 17-10-17 15:39:08, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Yang Shi wrote: > > > > Yes, this should catch occurrences of "huge unreclaimable slabs", right? > > > > Yes, it sounds so. Although single "huge" unreclaimable slab might not result > > in excessive slabs use in a whole, but this would help to filter out "small" > > unreclaimable slab. > > > > Keep in mind this is regardless of SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT: your patch has > value beyond only unreclaimable slab, it can also be used to show > instances where the oom killer was invoked without properly reclaiming > slab. If the total footprint of a slab cache exceeds 5%, I think a line > should be emitted unconditionally to the kernel log. agreed. I am not sure 5% is the greatest fit but we can tune that later. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
