From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933916AbcLTNBy (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 08:01:54 -0500 Received: from mail-wj0-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:36762 "EHLO mail-wj0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932357AbcLTNBv (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 08:01:51 -0500 From: Michal Hocko To: Andrew Morton Cc: Vlastimil Babka , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner , , LKML Subject: [PATCH 0/3 v2] mm, oom: add oom detection tracepoints Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:01:32 +0100 Message-Id: <20161220130135.15719-1-mhocko@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.10.2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, the previous version of the patchset has been posted here [1]. kbuild robot found some compilation issues which are fixed here. Vlastimil has reviewed the patchset and his review feedback has been addressed I believe. No other changes were introduced in this version and I believe this should be ready to be merged. Original cover: This is a long overdue and I am really sorry about that. I just didn't get to sit and come up with this earlier as there was always some going on which preempted it. This patchset adds two tracepoints which should help us to debug oom decision making. The first one is placed in should_reclaim_retry and it tells us why do we keep retrying the allocation and reclaim while the second is in should_compact_retry which tells us the similar for the high order requests. In combination with the existing compaction and reclaim tracepoints we can draw a much better picture about what is going on and why we go and declare the oom. I am not really a tracepoint guy so I hope I didn't do anything obviously stupid there. Thanks to Vlastimil for his help before I've posted this. Anywa feedback is of course welcome! [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161214145324.26261-1-mhocko@kernel.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wj0-f197.google.com (mail-wj0-f197.google.com [209.85.210.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A706B02F5 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 08:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wj0-f197.google.com with SMTP id gl16so1651121wjc.5 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 05:01:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wj0-f196.google.com (mail-wj0-f196.google.com. [209.85.210.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l6si18894815wmd.112.2016.12.20.05.01.43 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 05:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wj0-f196.google.com with SMTP id j10so27573730wjb.3 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 05:01:43 -0800 (PST) From: Michal Hocko Subject: [PATCH 0/3 v2] mm, oom: add oom detection tracepoints Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:01:32 +0100 Message-Id: <20161220130135.15719-1-mhocko@kernel.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Vlastimil Babka , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Hi, the previous version of the patchset has been posted here [1]. kbuild robot found some compilation issues which are fixed here. Vlastimil has reviewed the patchset and his review feedback has been addressed I believe. No other changes were introduced in this version and I believe this should be ready to be merged. Original cover: This is a long overdue and I am really sorry about that. I just didn't get to sit and come up with this earlier as there was always some going on which preempted it. This patchset adds two tracepoints which should help us to debug oom decision making. The first one is placed in should_reclaim_retry and it tells us why do we keep retrying the allocation and reclaim while the second is in should_compact_retry which tells us the similar for the high order requests. In combination with the existing compaction and reclaim tracepoints we can draw a much better picture about what is going on and why we go and declare the oom. I am not really a tracepoint guy so I hope I didn't do anything obviously stupid there. Thanks to Vlastimil for his help before I've posted this. Anywa feedback is of course welcome! [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161214145324.26261-1-mhocko@kernel.org -- 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: email@kvack.org