On Fri 27-10-17 00:15:17, Yang Shi wrote: > > > On 10/26/17 7:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 26-10-17 06:49:00, Yang Shi wrote: > > > Per the discussion with David [1], it looks more reasonable to just dump > > > > Please try to avoid external references in the changelog as much as > > possible. > > OK. > > > > > > the single excessive slab cache instead of dumping all slab caches when > > > oom. > > > > You meant to say > > "to just dump all slab caches which excess 10% of the total memory." > > > > While we are at it. Abusing calc_mem_size seems to be rather clumsy and > > tt is not nodemask aware so you the whole thing is dubious for NUMA > > constrained OOMs. > > Since we just need the total memory size of the node for NUMA constrained > OOM, we should be able to use show_mem_node_skip() to bring in nodemask. yes > > The more I think about this the more I am convinced that this is just > > fiddling with the code without a good reason and without much better > > outcome. > > I don't get you. Do you mean the benefit is not that much with just dumping > excessive slab caches? Yes, I am not sure it makes sense to touch it without further experiences. I am not saying this is a wrong approach I would just give it some more time to see how it behaves in the wild and then make changes based on that experience. -- 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>
