On Tue 27-10-15 11:43:42, Aristeu Rozanski wrote: > Hi Michal, > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:09:21AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 26-10-15 13:40:49, Aristeu Rozanski wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:20:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Would it make more sense to distinguish different parts of the OOM > > > > report by loglevel properly? > > > > pr_err - killed task report > > > > pr_warning - oom invocation + memory info > > > > pr_notice - task list > > > > pr_info - stack trace > > > > > > That'd work, yes, but I'd think the stack trace would be pr_debug. At a > > > point that you suspect the OOM killer isn't doing the right thing picking > > > up tasks and you need more information. > > > > Stack trace should be independent on the oom victim selection because > > the selection should be as much deterministic as possible - so it should > > only depend on the memory consumption. I do agree that the exact trace > > is not very useful for the (maybe) majority of OOM reports. I am trying > > to remember when it was really useful the last time and have trouble to > > find an example. So I would tend to agree that pr_debug would me more > > suitable. > > Only problem I see so far with this approach is that it'll require > reworing show_stack() on all architectures in order to be able to pass > and use log level and I'm wondering if it's something people will find > useful for other uses. Yes this is a mess. But I think it is worth cleaning up. dump_stack_print_info (arch independent) has a log level parameter. show_stack_log_lvl (x86) has a loglevel parameter which is unused. I haven't checked other architectures but the transition doesn't have to be all at once I guess. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>