lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:27:01 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <>
To:     Yang Shi <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: oom: dump single excessive slab cache when oom

On Fri 27-10-17 00:15:17, Yang Shi wrote:
> On 10/26/17 7:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 26-10-17 06:49:00, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > Per the discussion with David [1], it looks more reasonable to just dump
> > 
> > Please try to avoid external references in the changelog as much as
> > possible.
> OK.
> > 
> > > the single excessive slab cache instead of dumping all slab caches when
> > > oom.
> > 
> > You meant to say
> > "to just dump all slab caches which excess 10% of the total memory."
> > 
> > While we are at it. Abusing calc_mem_size seems to be rather clumsy and
> > tt is not nodemask aware so you the whole thing is dubious for NUMA
> > constrained OOMs.
> Since we just need the total memory size of the node for NUMA constrained
> OOM, we should be able to use show_mem_node_skip() to bring in nodemask.


> > The more I think about this the more I am convinced that this is just
> > fiddling with the code without a good reason and without much better
> > outcome.
> I don't get you. Do you mean the benefit is not that much with just dumping
> excessive slab caches?

Yes, I am not sure it makes sense to touch it without further
experiences. I am not saying this is a wrong approach I would just give
it some more time to see how it behaves in the wild and then make
changes based on that experience.
Michal Hocko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists