Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()

From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, dave@stgolabs.net,
	willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, corbet@lwn.net,
	void@manifault.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com,
	david@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org,
	masahiroy@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org,
	tj@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org,
	paulmck@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
	yosryahmed@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
	hughd@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	ndesaulniers@google.com, vvvvvv@google.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ebiggers@google.com,
	ytcoode@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	bsegall@google.com, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
	cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
	42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, glider@google.com, elver@google.com,
	dvyukov@google.com, shakeelb@google.com,
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, rientjes@google.com,
	minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com,
	kernel-team@android.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org,
	kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 21:22:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <320cd134-b767-4f29-869b-d219793ba8a1@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ruxvgrm3scv7zfjzbq22on7tj2fjouydzk33k7m2kukm2n6uuw@meusbsciwuut>

On 2/15/24 19:29, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:47:59AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:45 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu 15-02-24 06:58:42, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 1:22 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon 12-02-24 13:39:17, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> > > > [...]
>> > > > > @@ -423,4 +424,18 @@ void __show_mem(unsigned int filter, nodemask_t *nodemask, int max_zone_idx)
>> > > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
>> > > > >       printk("%lu pages hwpoisoned\n", atomic_long_read(&num_poisoned_pages));
>> > > > >  #endif
>> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
>> > > > > +     {
>> > > > > +             struct seq_buf s;
>> > > > > +             char *buf = kmalloc(4096, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> > > > > +
>> > > > > +             if (buf) {
>> > > > > +                     printk("Memory allocations:\n");
>> > > > > +                     seq_buf_init(&s, buf, 4096);
>> > > > > +                     alloc_tags_show_mem_report(&s);
>> > > > > +                     printk("%s", buf);
>> > > > > +                     kfree(buf);
>> > > > > +             }
>> > > > > +     }
>> > > > > +#endif
>> > > >
>> > > > I am pretty sure I have already objected to this. Memory allocations in
>> > > > the oom path are simply no go unless there is absolutely no other way
>> > > > around that. In this case the buffer could be preallocated.
>> > >
>> > > Good point. We will change this to a smaller buffer allocated on the
>> > > stack and will print records one-by-one. Thanks!
>> >
>> > __show_mem could be called with a very deep call chains. A single
>> > pre-allocated buffer should just do ok.
>> 
>> Ack. Will do.
> 
> No, we're not going to permanently burn 4k here.
> 
> It's completely fine if the allocation fails, there's nothing "unsafe"
> about doing a GFP_ATOMIC allocation here.

Well, I think without __GFP_NOWARN it will cause a warning and thus
recursion into __show_mem(), potentially infinite? Which is of course
trivial to fix, but I'd myself rather sacrifice a bit of memory to get this
potentially very useful output, if I enabled the profiling. The necessary
memory overhead of page_ext and slabobj_ext makes the printing buffer
overhead negligible in comparison?