On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 08:32:24PM GMT, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 5:53 PM Kent Overstreet > <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > We already do this when reporting slab info - more consistent and more > > readable. > > Hi Kent, > I remember we discussed this before and agreed upon Pasha's suggestion > that if needed one could do: > > # sort -g /proc/allocinfo|tail|numfmt --to=iec > 2.8M 22648 fs/kernfs/dir.c:615 func:__kernfs_new_node > 3.8M 953 mm/memory.c:4214 func:alloc_anon_folio > 4.0M 1010 drivers/staging/ctagmod/ctagmod.c:20 [ctagmod] > func:ctagmod_start > 4.1M 4 net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c:2567 > func:nf_ct_alloc_hashtable > 6.0M 1532 mm/filemap.c:1919 func:__filemap_get_folio > 8.8M 2785 kernel/fork.c:307 func:alloc_thread_stack_node > 13M 234 block/blk-mq.c:3421 func:blk_mq_alloc_rqs > 14M 3520 mm/mm_init.c:2530 func:alloc_large_system_hash > 15M 3656 mm/readahead.c:247 func:page_cache_ra_unbounded > 55M 4887 mm/slub.c:2259 func:alloc_slab_page > 122M 31168 mm/page_ext.c:270 func:alloc_page_ext > > That's even documented here: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10.8/source/Documentation/mm/allocation-profiling.rst#L36 > Did something change? That's for /proc/allocinfo, which this patch doesn't change - this is the oom report.
