[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHCio2gQBZDi1oOh8QYbKFbB5E3eSain0soeqE3wAn=zQZeZ5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 20:13:44 +0800
From: 禹舟键 <ufo19890607@...il.com>
To: mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 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 Michal
I will add the missing information in the cover-letter.
> That being said, I am ready to ack a patch which adds the memcg of the
> oom victim. I will not ack (nor nack) the patch which turns it into a
> single print because I am not sure the benefit is really worth it. Maybe
> others will though.
OK, I will use the pr_cont_cgroup_name() to print origin and kill
memcg's name. I hope David will not have other opinions :)
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists