Re: Misleading OOM messages

[Balbir Singh]

* Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-05-15 11:23:27]:

> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 13:58 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 May 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > To me it at least adds the fact that more should be made *available* and
> > > > not just that you're out of it.  So, definitely not perfect, but better
> > > > than "out".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think "no allowable memory" followed by information on what is and is
> > > not allowed in that specific context would remove any ambiguity.
> > 
> > Useful information to have. If a NUMA or cgroup restriction caused the
> > failure then we should print that out.
> 
> We get a wee bit of info out for the cgroups case at least:
> 
> void mem_cgroup_out_of_memory(struct mem_cgroup *mem, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> ...
>         if (oom_kill_process(p, gfp_mask, 0, points, mem,
>                                 "Memory cgroup out of memory"))
>                 goto retry;
> 
> That can surely be improved, but it's a decent start.
>

Also look at mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(). 

-- 
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/