On Fri 27-10-17 00:15:17, Yang Shi wrote:

On 10/26/17 7:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:

quoted

On Thu 26-10-17 06:49:00, Yang Shi wrote:

quoted

Per the discussion with David [1], it looks more reasonable to just dump

Please try to avoid external references in the changelog as much as
possible.

OK.

quoted

quoted

the single excessive slab cache instead of dumping all slab caches when
oom.

You meant to say
"to just dump all slab caches which excess 10% of the total memory."

While we are at it. Abusing calc_mem_size seems to be rather clumsy and
tt is not nodemask aware so you the whole thing is dubious for NUMA
constrained OOMs.

Since we just need the total memory size of the node for NUMA constrained
OOM, we should be able to use show_mem_node_skip() to bring in nodemask.

yes

quoted

The more I think about this the more I am convinced that this is just
fiddling with the code without a good reason and without much better
outcome.

I don't get you. Do you mean the benefit is not that much with just dumping
excessive slab caches?

Yes, I am not sure it makes sense to touch it without further
experiences. I am not saying this is a wrong approach I would just give
it some more time to see how it behaves in the wild and then make
changes based on that experience.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>