[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1567023536.5576.19.camel@lca.pw>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:18:56 -0400
From: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To: Edward Chron <echron@...sta.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ivan Delalande <colona@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] OOM Debug print selection and additional
information
On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 12:46 -0700, Edward Chron wrote:
> But with the caveat that running a eBPF script that it isn't standard Linux
> operating procedure, at this point in time any way will not be well
> received in the data center.
Can't you get your eBPF scripts into the BCC project? As far I can tell, the BCC
has been included in several distros already, and then it will become a part of
standard linux toolkits.
>
> Our belief is if you really think eBPF is the preferred mechanism
> then move OOM reporting to an eBPF.
> I mentioned this before but I will reiterate this here.
On the other hand, it seems many people are happy with the simple kernel OOM
report we have here. Not saying the current situation is perfect. On the top of
that, some people are using kdump, and some people have resource monitoring to
warn about potential memory overcommits before OOM kicks in etc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists