On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:05:27PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I like how slub handles this when it can't allocate more slab with > > slab_out_of_memory() and has the added benefit of still warning even with > > __GFP_NORETRY that the oom killer is never called for. If there's really > > a slab leak happening, there's a good chance that this diagnostic > > information is going to be emitted by the offending cache at some point in > > time if you're using slub. This could easily be extended to slab.c, so > > it's even more reason not to include this type of information in the oom > > killer. > > Works for me. Rafael? New patch, following the suggested approach, posted: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/28/561 Thanks folks, for all your feedback here! Rafael -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>