From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f199.google.com (mail-yw0-f199.google.com [209.85.161.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2679C831F4 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 14:05:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw0-f199.google.com with SMTP id h21so93971962ywc.4 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 11:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z132si6275907ybb.19.2017.05.22.11.05.52 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 May 2017 11:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id u75so112577654qka.3 for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 11:05:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <149520375057.74196.2843113275800730971.stgit@buzz> From: Roman Guschin Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 19:05:51 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: count global and memory cgroup oom kills Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Konstantin Khlebnikov Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner 2017-05-22 10:11 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Khlebnikov : > > > On 19.05.2017 19:34, Roman Guschin wrote: >> >> 2017-05-19 15:22 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Khlebnikov >> : >> From a user's point of view the difference between "oom" and "max" >> becomes really vague here, >> assuming that "max" is described almost in the same words: >> >> "The number of times the cgroup's memory usage was >> about to go over the max boundary. If direct reclaim >> fails to bring it down, the OOM killer is invoked." >> >> I wonder, if it's better to fix the existing "oom" value to show what >> it has to show, according to docs, >> rather than to introduce a new one? >> > > Nope, they are different. I think we should rephase documentation somehow > > low - count of reclaims below low level > high - count of post-allocation reclaims above high level > max - count of direct reclaims > oom - count of failed direct reclaims > oom_kill - count of oom killer invocations and killed processes Definitely worth it. Also, I would prefer to reserve "oom" for number of oom victims, and introduce something like "reclaim_failed". It will be consistent with existing vmstat. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org