From: Michal Hocko <email@example.com> To: Aaron Tomlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/oom_kill: show oom eligibility when displaying the current memory state of all tasks Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:05:58 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YQjq1mXDXcS1CMMO@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Mon 02-08-21 16:12:50, Aaron Tomlin wrote: > On Mon 2021-08-02 08:34 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > If you really want/need to make any change here then I would propose to > > either add E(eligible)/I(ligible) column without any specifics or > > consistently skip over all tasks which are not eligible. > > How about the suggestion made by David i.e. exposing the value returned by > oom_badness(), as if I understand correctly, this would provide a more > complete picture with regard to the rationale used? There were some attempts to print oom_score during OOM. E.g. http://email@example.com. That one was rejected on the grounds that the number on its own doesn't really present any real value. It is really only valuable when comparing to other potential oom victims. I have to say I am still worried about printing this internal scoring as it should have really been an implementation detail but with /proc/<pid>/oom_score this is likely a lost battle and I am willing to give up on that front. I am still not entirely convinced this is worth doing though. oom_badness is not a cheap operation. task_lock has to be taken again during dump_tasks for each task so the already quite expensive operation will be more so. Is this really something we cannot live without? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-03 7:06 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-07-30 16:20 Aaron Tomlin 2021-08-01 20:01 ` Andrew Morton 2021-08-02 3:49 ` David Rientjes 2021-08-02 14:50 ` Aaron Tomlin 2021-08-02 6:34 ` Michal Hocko 2021-08-02 15:12 ` Aaron Tomlin 2021-08-03 7:05 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2021-08-03 10:32 ` Aaron Tomlin
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=YQjq1mXDXcS1CMMO@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v3] mm/oom_kill: show oom eligibility when displaying the current memory state of all tasks' \ /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).