From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753243Ab2GIUb6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:31:58 -0400 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:52306 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752976Ab2GIUb5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:31:57 -0400 Message-ID: <1341865916.6118.25.camel@joe2Laptop> Subject: Re: 3.5-rc6 printk formatting problem during oom-kill. From: Joe Perches To: Kay Sievers Cc: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , Linus Torvalds , Greg Kroah-Hartmann Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:31:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1341859731.801.0.camel@mop> References: <20120709180328.GA4105@redhat.com> <1341859731.801.0.camel@mop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:27 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > > > I noticed that the format of the oom-killer output seems to have changed, and > > > now it spews stuff like.. > > > > > > [49461.758070] lowmem_reserve[]: > > > [49461.758071] 0 > > > [49461.758071] 2643 > > > [49461.758071] 3878 > > > [49461.758072] 3878 > > > [49461.758072] > > > [49461.758072] Node 0 > > > > > Does the oom-killer code need modifying, or the printk code ? > > > I know there's been some regressions in this area recently, but this is still > > > happening on the current tree (8c84bf4166a4698296342841a549bbee03860ac0) > > > > This likely fixes it: > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/kay/patches.git;a=blob;f=kmsg-merge-cont.patch;hb=HEAD > > > > Let me check if it does, and if I can reproduce it. > > It looks fine here with the above mentioned patch: > [ 0.000000] lowmem_reserve[]: > [ 0.000000] 0 > [ 0.000000] 0 > [ 0.000000] 0 > [ 0.000000] 0 > [ 0.000000] > [ 0.000000] DMA: > [ 0.000000] 1*4kB > [ 0.000000] 0*8kB > [ 0.000000] 0*16kB > [ 0.000000] 1*32kB > [ 0.000000] 2*64kB > [ 0.000000] 1*128kB > [ 0.000000] 1*256kB > [ 0.000000] 0*512kB > [ 0.000000] 1*1024kB > [ 0.000000] 1*2048kB > [ 0.000000] 3*4096kB > [ 0.000000] = 15908kB > > becomes: > [ 0.000000] lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0 > [ 0.000000] DMA: 1*4kB 0*8kB 0*16kB 1*32kB 2*64kB 1*128kB 1*256kB 0*512kB 1*1024kB 1*2048kB 3*4096kB = 15908kB Hi Kay. That single patch doesn't apply cleanly to Linus' 8c84bf4166a4698296342841a549bbee03860ac0 What else is necessary? Your tree seems to have a collection of random patches. It might be useful to clone Linus' tree and produce a branch with all the necessary printk patches in it so someone else could pull it. cheers, Joe