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: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:02:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6fc2bb5f-a91c-f4e8-8d3c-029e2bdb3526@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161004141607.GC32214@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 10/04/2016 04:16 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-10-16 15:24:53, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 09/30/2016 11:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> Fix this by always priting the nodemask. It is either mempolicy mask
>>> (and non-null) or the one defined by the cpusets.
>>
>> I wonder if it's helpful to print the cpuset one when that's printed
>> separately, and seeing both pieces of information (nodemask and cpuset)
>> unmodified might tell us more. Is it to make it easier to deal with NULL
>> nodemask? Or to make sure the info gets through pr_warn() and not pr_info()?
>
> I am not sure I understand the question. I wanted to print the nodemask
> separatelly in the same line with all other allocation request
> parameters like order and gfp mask because that is what the page
> allocator got (via policy_nodemask). cpusets builds on top - aka applies
> __cpuset_zone_allowed on top of the nodemask. So imho it makes sense to
> look at the cpuset as an allocation domain while the mempolicy as a
> restriction within this domain.
>
> Does that answer your question?

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;

>>> The new output for
>>> the above oom report would be
>>>
>>> PoolThread invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE|__GFP_ZERO), nodemask=0, order=0, oom_adj=0, oom_score_adj=0
>>>
>>> This patch doesn't touch show_mem and the node filtering based on the
>>> cpuset node mask because mempolicy is always a subset of cpusets and
>>> seeing the full cpuset oom context might be helpful for tunning more
>>> specific mempolicies inside cpusets (e.g. when they turn out to be too
>>> restrictive). To prevent from ugly ifdefs the mask is printed even
>>> for !NUMA configurations but this should be OK (a single node will be
>>> printed).
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Sellami Abdelkader <abdelkader.sellami@sap.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>>
>> Other than that,
>>
>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>
> Thanks!
>

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: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:02:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6fc2bb5f-a91c-f4e8-8d3c-029e2bdb3526@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161004141607.GC32214@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 10/04/2016 04:16 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-10-16 15:24:53, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 09/30/2016 11:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> Fix this by always priting the nodemask. It is either mempolicy mask
>>> (and non-null) or the one defined by the cpusets.
>>
>> I wonder if it's helpful to print the cpuset one when that's printed
>> separately, and seeing both pieces of information (nodemask and cpuset)
>> unmodified might tell us more. Is it to make it easier to deal with NULL
>> nodemask? Or to make sure the info gets through pr_warn() and not pr_info()?
>
> I am not sure I understand the question. I wanted to print the nodemask
> separatelly in the same line with all other allocation request
> parameters like order and gfp mask because that is what the page
> allocator got (via policy_nodemask). cpusets builds on top - aka applies
> __cpuset_zone_allowed on top of the nodemask. So imho it makes sense to
> look at the cpuset as an allocation domain while the mempolicy as a
> restriction within this domain.
>
> Does that answer your question?

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;

>>> The new output for
>>> the above oom report would be
>>>
>>> PoolThread invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE|__GFP_ZERO), nodemask=0, order=0, oom_adj=0, oom_score_adj=0
>>>
>>> This patch doesn't touch show_mem and the node filtering based on the
>>> cpuset node mask because mempolicy is always a subset of cpusets and
>>> seeing the full cpuset oom context might be helpful for tunning more
>>> specific mempolicies inside cpusets (e.g. when they turn out to be too
>>> restrictive). To prevent from ugly ifdefs the mask is printed even
>>> for !NUMA configurations but this should be OK (a single node will be
>>> printed).
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Sellami Abdelkader <abdelkader.sellami@sap.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>>
>> Other than that,
>>
>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>
> Thanks!
>

--
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:[~2016-10-04 15:02 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 [this message]
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
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=6fc2bb5f-a91c-f4e8-8d3c-029e2bdb3526@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.