Re: [PATCH] oom_kill: add option to disable dump_stack()

[Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

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.

-- 
Aristeu