[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHCio2gj-DoOek0RN718TCLZsOpNPd6Ua88HPijdqezuySDjaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 17:53:14 +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 Mike
> My question was why do you call to alloc_constrained in the dump_header()
> function rather than pass the constraint that was detected a bit earlier to
> that function?
dump_header will be called by three functions: oom_kill_process,
check_panic_on_oom, out_of_memory.
We can get the constraint from the last two
functions(check_panic_on_oom, out_of_memory), but I need to
pass a new parameter(constraint) for oom_kill_process.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists