From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E1BC41514 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:34:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C98233A1 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:34:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lca.pw header.i=@lca.pw header.b="gdkeYnFw" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 79C98233A1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lca.pw Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 000D06B000D; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:34:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id ECB9F6B000E; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:34:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id DC6B56B0010; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:34:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0180.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAF66B000D for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 62532181AC9AE for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:34:54 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75873141708.23.meat51_dac062773942 X-HE-Tag: meat51_dac062773942 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5136 Received: from mail-qk1-f195.google.com (mail-qk1-f195.google.com [209.85.222.195]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:34:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f195.google.com with SMTP id r21so1151687qke.2 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:34:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lca.pw; s=google; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kYdive4fs3YZW5MK2IGi1qPAKF/i7A4RjMEmiRAW0YI=; b=gdkeYnFw6COpROHjRJ2RmqLqL7/6msb8Cb45NqPN05qHJQ8pmvP69p4niXYgy8j5yk jSt8bbHcrj+oIUDiYCvESLaAVZ2IXIfPdP1n6ydeuFzw0lutP3vjCAb7N4LHvp7k/1cx xdbLelMkamRh3ry3UdBtVW12Q/laVbA0sp/tgaxrW2pmxZX8Oe7ltO4HfrEGnk6oM9Ng X6frDnSQfs7zxcfUCYTadZUSkDHRu8iAnBJ5rrWTYxrGGk13wDiej28RgsMGEUJUdhzt 04IgQ18tNdw+pjJbFUv/7x2XwYAh9ef8NqKcTrfyKZYuZMRVy/G0s9coHMiWoNZnEDcg WCiw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kYdive4fs3YZW5MK2IGi1qPAKF/i7A4RjMEmiRAW0YI=; b=p5v2PbHTEQQCzWoY8WVpIra6uspL0uw/1EYuLL5y0NFtgNw47KdObR0SqXXtWGaHtb 2G5NHWmZa5iOqK/aNf57JOiBY9Ufsak6nvTx7mNTLPpl0Bfe7l1yNIk6fhnLj415PvP0 u36HFKqFsvtAXZJ5YRcU8oBfBwNaNG023WTdXpzoNmtVOwFlEGzfSM1lFonEmmXEM+UV PV0hRPyj6iHQyB35UT/UoNIErN0Ea9UMQthvL6j0SwILf/kBTD1N3ZhOjfVRe99h/FnX 7ocMliHagoAqjbVTx/I3vXFEpy0DRTGmjj7pxs7wqS4sp9tlVzC5iWcJDaWb4EuW+JYT x8Mg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU6VJKLhS13+H8XwOQAC99re56KxI65TTdsN1VFfjLkuLtEJwG/ 3ImDbCgFVT5cLhMmrMTYOIZzOA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxvYLog15/ffNFORB863U4m0rpbbdfB4NgE8vkgrE1rx4VHVYrp1uVsnU603atnVOdXWuIxLQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:47cb:: with SMTP id u194mr6226136qka.342.1567028093142; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-41-57.bos.redhat.com (nat-pool-bos-t.redhat.com. [66.187.233.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y202sm182872qkb.5.2019.08.28.14.34.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1567028090.5576.21.camel@lca.pw> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] OOM Debug print selection and additional information From: Qian Cai To: Edward Chron Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , David Rientjes , Tetsuo Handa , Shakeel Butt , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ivan Delalande Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:34:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20190826193638.6638-1-echron@arista.com> <20190827071523.GR7538@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190828065955.GB7386@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1567023536.5576.19.camel@lca.pw> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 (3.22.6-10.el7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 14:17 -0700, Edward Chron wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:18 PM Qian Cai wrote: > > > > 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. > > Assuming you can implement your existing report in eBPF then those who like > the > current output would still get the current output. Same with the patches we > sent > upstream, nothing in the report changes by default. So no problems for those > who > are happy, they'll still be happy. I don't think it makes any sense to rewrite the existing code to depends on eBPF though.