From 259b3633e78d627353d49b1eb226d72b2ac588da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hui Su Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:12:49 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] mm/oom_kill: change comment and rename is_dump_unreclaim_slabs() Change the comment of is_dump_unreclaim_slabs(), it just check whether nr_unreclaimable slabs amount is greater than user memory, and explain why we dump unreclaim slabs. Rename it to should_dump_unreclaim_slab() maybe better. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201030182704.GA53949@rlk Signed-off-by: Hui Su Acked-by: Michal Hocko Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/oom_kill.c | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c index 8b84661a6410..04b19b7b5435 100644 --- a/mm/oom_kill.c +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c @@ -170,11 +170,13 @@ static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p) return false; } -/* - * Print out unreclaimble slabs info when unreclaimable slabs amount is greater - * than all user memory (LRU pages) - */ -static bool is_dump_unreclaim_slabs(void) +/** + * Check whether unreclaimable slab amount is greater than + * all user memory(LRU pages). + * dump_unreclaimable_slab() could help in the case that + * oom due to too much unreclaimable slab used by kernel. +*/ +static bool should_dump_unreclaim_slab(void) { unsigned long nr_lru; @@ -463,7 +465,7 @@ static void dump_header(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p) mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo(oc->memcg); else { show_mem(SHOW_MEM_FILTER_NODES, oc->nodemask); - if (is_dump_unreclaim_slabs()) + if (should_dump_unreclaim_slab()) dump_unreclaimable_slab(); } if (sysctl_oom_dump_tasks)