[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHCio2in8NXZRanE9MS0VsSZxKaSvTy96TF59hODoNCxuQTz5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:41:10 +0800
From: 禹舟键 <ufo19890607@...il.com>
To: rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, guro@...com,
yang.s@...baba-inc.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wind Yu <yuzhoujian@...ichuxing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header
Hi Tetsuo
> Since origin_memcg_name is printed for both memcg OOM and !memcg OOM, it is strange that origin_memcg_name is updated only when memcg != NULL. Have you really tested !memcg OOM case?
if memcg == NULL , origin_memcg_name will also be NULL, so the length
of it is 0. origin_memcg_name will be "(null)". I've tested !memcg OOM
case with CONFIG_MEMCG and !CONFIG_MEMCG, and found nothing wrong.
Thanks
Wind
禹舟键 <ufo19890607@...il.com> 于2018年6月4日周一 上午9:58写道:
>
> Hi Mike
> > Please keep the brief description of the function actually brief and move the detailed explanation after the parameters description.
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> > The allocation constraint is detected by the dump_header() callers, why not just use it here?
> David suggest that constraint need to be printed in the oom report, so
> I add the enum variable in this function.
>
> Thanks
> Wind
Powered by blists - more mailing lists