On Tue 16-10-18 20:05:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/10/16 18:20, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> Anyway, I'm OK if we apply _BOTH_ your patch and my patch. Or I'm OK with simplified > >> one shown below (because you don't like per memcg limit). > > > > My patch is adding a rate-limit! I really fail to see why we need yet > > another one on top of it. This is just ridiculous. I can see reasons to > > tune that rate limit but adding 2 different mechanisms is just wrong. > > > > If your NAK to unify the ratelimit for dump_header for all paths > > still holds then I do not care too much to push it forward. But I find > > thiis way of the review feedback counter productive. > > > > Your patch is _NOT_ adding a rate-limit for > > "%s invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=%#x(%pGg), nodemask=%*pbl, order=%d, oom_score_adj=%hd\n" > "Out of memory and no killable processes...\n" > > lines! And I've said I do not have objections to have an _incremental_ patch to move the ratelimit up with a clear cost/benefit evaluation. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
