On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:51:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. You're completely mischaractarizing and making this _way_ more complicated than it has to be, but I'll repeat: - For the slab changes, top 10 slabs in sorted order, with human readable units are _vastly_ easier on human eyes than pages of slab output, in the previous format - Shrinkers weren't reported on before at all, and as shrinkers are part of memory reclaim they're pretty integral to OOM debugging. > > 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. Uh huh. Sounds like someone has some scripts he doesn't want to have to update.
