From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8467AC433E1 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E58F2076D for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:10:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4E58F2076D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=i-love.sakura.ne.jp Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B52CE6B0073; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:10:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id ADC926B0074; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:10:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9A4D68D0012; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:10:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0200.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 813136B0073 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:10:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AA3181AC9CB for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:10:17 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77043972474.26.army55_0f0468526f02 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin26.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A3B1804B655 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:10:16 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: army55_0f0468526f02 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3300 Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp [202.181.97.72]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fsav301.sakura.ne.jp (fsav301.sakura.ne.jp [153.120.85.132]) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 06GDA20g050000; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 22:10:02 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (202.181.97.72) by fsav301.sakura.ne.jp (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/fsav301.sakura.ne.jp); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 22:10:02 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/fsav301.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (M106072142033.v4.enabler.ne.jp [106.72.142.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 06GDA13o049996 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 22:10:02 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memcg, oom: check memcg margin for parallel oom To: Michal Hocko , Yafang Shao Cc: David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Linux MM References: <20200716122150.GL31089@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Tetsuo Handa Message-ID: <51e3b3c8-aa59-99b9-3519-80b352dfc7ae@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 22:09:56 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200716122150.GL31089@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D5A3B1804B655 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2020/07/16 21:21, Michal Hocko wrote: > If the oom report should be misleading then it would be better to not > bother at all IMHO. From my experience the memory state is really useful > when debugging ooms and having a reasonable snapshot is really > important. IIRC Tetsuo was suggesting collecting all the information at > the time of the oom and print that snapshot later on but the patch was > quite invasive and didn't handle multiple OOMs from different oom > domains - especially the dump_task part would need to link all the tasks > for different oom contexts. I did, and you just refused as always. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20190830103504.GA28313@dhcp22.suse.cz/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20190909113627.GJ27159@dhcp22.suse.cz/