From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751804AbeFDE6X (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 00:58:23 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:47248 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751061AbeFDE6W (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 00:58:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 07:58:12 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: =?utf-8?B?56a56Iif6ZSu?= Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com, rientjes@google.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, guro@fb.com, yang.s@alibaba-inc.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wind Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header References: <1527940734-35161-1-git-send-email-ufo19890607@gmail.com> <1527940734-35161-2-git-send-email-ufo19890607@gmail.com> <20180603124941.GA29497@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18060404-0028-0000-0000-000002CC5750 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18060404-0029-0000-0000-00002382DA2A Message-Id: <20180604045812.GA15196@rapoport-lnx> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-04_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1806040061 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:41:10AM +0800, 禹舟键 wrote: > Hi Tetsuo > > Since origin_memcg_name is printed for both memcg OOM and !memcg OOM, it is strange that origin_memcg_name is updated only when memcg != NULL. Have you really tested !memcg OOM case? > > if memcg == NULL , origin_memcg_name will also be NULL, so the length > of it is 0. origin_memcg_name will be "(null)". I've tested !memcg OOM > case with CONFIG_MEMCG and !CONFIG_MEMCG, and found nothing wrong. > > Thanks > Wind > 禹舟键 于2018年6月4日周一 上午9:58写道： > > > > Hi Mike > > > Please keep the brief description of the function actually brief and move the detailed explanation after the parameters description. > > Thanks for your advice. > > > > > The allocation constraint is detected by the dump_header() callers, why not just use it here? > > David suggest that constraint need to be printed in the oom report, so > > I add the enum variable in this function. My question was why do you call to alloc_constrained in the dump_header() function rather than pass the constraint that was detected a bit earlier to that function? Sorry if wasn't clear enough. > > Thanks > > Wind > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.