On Thu 21-04-22 19:48:37, Kent Overstreet wrote: > This patch: > - Changes show_mem() to always report on slab usage > - Instead of reporting on all slabs, we only report on top 10 slabs, > and in sorted order As I've already pointed out in the email thread for the previous version, this would be better in its own patch explaining why we want to make this unconditional and why to limit the number caches to print. Why the trashold shouldn't be absolute size based? > - Also reports on shrinkers, with the new shrinkers_to_text(). > Shrinkers need to be included in OOM/allocation failure reporting > because they're responsible for memory reclaim - if a shrinker isn't > giving up its memory, we need to know which one and why. Again, I do agree that information about shrinkers can be useful but there are two main things to consider. Do we want to dump that information unconditionaly? E.g. does it make sense to print for all allocation requests (even high order, GFP_NOWAIT...)? Should there be any explicit trigger when to dump this data (like too many shrinkers failing etc)? Last but not least let me echo the concern from the other reply. Memory allocations are not really reasonable to be done from the oom context so the pr_buf doesn't sound like a good tool here. Also please make sure to provide an example of the output and _explain_ how the new output is better than the existing one. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
