All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Sellami Abdelkader <abdelkader.sellami@sap.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: print nodemask in the oom report
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:51:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56a3bdb2-2aa2-2624-b556-5169bf46559c@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161004151258.GD32214@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 10/04/2016 05:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I wasn't clear. What I questioned is the fallback to cpusets for NULL
>> nodemask:
>>
>> nodemask_t *nm = (oc->nodemask) ? oc->nodemask :
>> &cpuset_current_mems_allowed;
>
> Well no nodemask means there is no mempolicy so either all nodes can be
> used or they are restricted by the cpuset. cpuset_current_mems_allowed is
> node_states[N_MEMORY] if there is no cpuset so I believe we are printing
> the correct information. An alternative would be either not print
> anything if there is no nodemask or print node_states[N_MEMORY]
> regardless the cpusets. The first one is quite ugly while the later
> might be confusing I guess.

So I thought it would be useful to distinguish that mempolicy/nodemask 
had no restriction (e.g. NULL), vs restriction that happens to be the 
very same as cpuset_current_mems_allowed. With your patch we can just 
guess, if both are printed as the same sets. But I guess there's not 
much value in that and the most important point is that we can determine 
the resulting combination (intersection) of both kinds of restrictions 
from the report, which indeed we can after your patch.

Thanks,
Vlastimil

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Sellami Abdelkader <abdelkader.sellami@sap.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom: print nodemask in the oom report
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:51:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56a3bdb2-2aa2-2624-b556-5169bf46559c@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161004151258.GD32214@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 10/04/2016 05:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I wasn't clear. What I questioned is the fallback to cpusets for NULL
>> nodemask:
>>
>> nodemask_t *nm = (oc->nodemask) ? oc->nodemask :
>> &cpuset_current_mems_allowed;
>
> Well no nodemask means there is no mempolicy so either all nodes can be
> used or they are restricted by the cpuset. cpuset_current_mems_allowed is
> node_states[N_MEMORY] if there is no cpuset so I believe we are printing
> the correct information. An alternative would be either not print
> anything if there is no nodemask or print node_states[N_MEMORY]
> regardless the cpusets. The first one is quite ugly while the later
> might be confusing I guess.

So I thought it would be useful to distinguish that mempolicy/nodemask 
had no restriction (e.g. NULL), vs restriction that happens to be the 
very same as cpuset_current_mems_allowed. With your patch we can just 
guess, if both are printed as the same sets. But I guess there's not 
much value in that and the most important point is that we can determine 
the resulting combination (intersection) of both kinds of restrictions 
from the report, which indeed we can after your patch.

Thanks,
Vlastimil

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-05  9:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-30 21:41 Michal Hocko
2016-09-30 21:41 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-04 13:24 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-04 13:24   ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-04 14:16   ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-04 14:16     ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-04 15:02     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-04 15:02       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-10-04 15:12       ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-04 15:12         ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-05  9:51         ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2016-10-05  9:51           ` Vlastimil Babka

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=56a3bdb2-2aa2-2624-b556-5169bf46559c@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=abdelkader.sellami@sap.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] oom: print nodemask in the oom report' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.