From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f72.google.com (mail-pl0-f72.google.com [209.85.160.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0CE6B0003 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 18:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f72.google.com with SMTP id w1-v6so161227ply.12 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 15:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id t63-v6sor3055302pfi.74.2018.07.13.15.22.19 for (Google Transport Security); Fri, 13 Jul 2018 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 15:22:17 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/2] Add oom victim's memcg to the oom context information In-Reply-To: <1531482952-4595-1-git-send-email-ufo19890607@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <1531482952-4595-1-git-send-email-ufo19890607@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: ufo19890607@gmail.com Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, guro@fb.com, yang.s@alibaba-inc.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yuzhoujian@didichuxing.com On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, ufo19890607@gmail.com wrote: > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > index 531b2c86d4db..7fbd389ea779 100644 > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -434,10 +434,11 @@ static void dump_header(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p) > oom_constraint_text[oc->constraint], > nodemask_pr_args(oc->nodemask)); > cpuset_print_current_mems_allowed(); > + mem_cgroup_print_oom_context(oc->memcg, p); > pr_cont(",task=%s,pid=%5d,uid=%5d\n", p->comm, p->pid, > from_kuid(&init_user_ns, task_uid(p))); > if (is_memcg_oom(oc)) > - mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(oc->memcg, p); > + mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo(oc->memcg); > else { > show_mem(SHOW_MEM_FILTER_NODES, oc->nodemask); > if (is_dump_unreclaim_slabs()) Ugh, could we please not pad the pid and uid with spaces? I don't think it achieves anything and just makes regex less robust. Otherwise, looks good!