From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aristeu Rozanski Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom_kill: add option to disable dump_stack() Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:40:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20151026174048.GP15046@redhat.com> References: <1445634150-27992-1-git-send-email-arozansk@redhat.com> <20151026172012.GC9779@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151026172012.GC9779-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Hi Michal, On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:20:12PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > I can see why you want to reduce the amount of information, I guess you > have tried to reduce the loglevel but this hasn't helped because > dump_stack uses default log level which is too low to be usable, right? > Or are there any other reasons? One would be that the stack trace isn't very useful for users IMHO. > I am not sure sysctl is a good way to tell this particular restriction > on the output. What if somebody else doesn't want to see the list of > eligible tasks? Should we add another knob? > > 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. -- Aristeu