All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: warn about allocations which stall for too long
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:17:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160926081751.GD27030@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201609241200.AEE21807.OSOtQVOLHMFJFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

On Sat 24-09-16 12:00:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 23-09-16 23:36:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > @@ -3659,6 +3661,15 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> > > >  	else
> > > >  		no_progress_loops++;
> > > >  
> > > > +	/* Make sure we know about allocations which stall for too long */
> > > > +	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN) && time_after(jiffies, alloc_start + stall_timeout)) {
> > > 
> > > Should we check !__GFP_NOWARN ? I think __GFP_NOWARN is likely used with
> > > __GFP_NORETRY, and __GFP_NORETRY is already checked by now.
> > > 
> > > I think printing warning regardless of __GFP_NOWARN is better because
> > > this check is similar to hungtask warning.
> > 
> > Well, if the user said to not warn we should really obey that. Why would
> > that matter?
> 
> __GFP_NOWARN is defined as "Do not print failure messages when memory
> allocation failed". It is not defined as "Do not print OOM killer messages
> when OOM killer is invoked". It is undefined that "Do not print stall
> messages when memory allocation is stalling".

Which is kind of expected as we warned only about allocation failures up
to now.

> If memory allocating threads were blocked on locks instead of doing direct
> reclaim, hungtask will be able to find stalling memory allocations without
> this change. Since direct reclaim prevents allocating threads from sleeping
> for long enough to be warned by hungtask, it is important that this change
> shall find allocating threads which cannot be warned by hungtask. That is,
> not printing warning messages for __GFP_NOWARN allocation requests looses
> the value of this change.

I dunno. If the user explicitly requests to not have allocation warning
then I think we should obey that. But this is not something I would be
really insisting hard. If others think that the check should be dropped
I can live with that.

[...]
> > > ) rather than by line number, and surround __warn_memalloc_stall() call with
> > > mutex in order to serialize warning messages because it is possible that
> > > multiple allocation requests are stalling?
> > 
> > we do not use any lock in warn_alloc_failed so why this should be any
> > different?
> 
> warn_alloc_failed() is called for both __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM and
> !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocation requests, and it is not allowed
> to sleep if !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM. Thus, we have to tolerate that
> concurrent memory allocation failure messages make dmesg output
> unreadable. But __warn_memalloc_stall() is called for only
> __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocation requests. Thus, we are allowed to
> sleep in order to serialize concurrent memory allocation stall
> messages.

I still do not see a point. A single line about the warning and locked
dump_stack sounds sufficient to me.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@suse.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: warn about allocations which stall for too long
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:17:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160926081751.GD27030@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201609241200.AEE21807.OSOtQVOLHMFJFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>

On Sat 24-09-16 12:00:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 23-09-16 23:36:22, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > @@ -3659,6 +3661,15 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> > > >  	else
> > > >  		no_progress_loops++;
> > > >  
> > > > +	/* Make sure we know about allocations which stall for too long */
> > > > +	if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN) && time_after(jiffies, alloc_start + stall_timeout)) {
> > > 
> > > Should we check !__GFP_NOWARN ? I think __GFP_NOWARN is likely used with
> > > __GFP_NORETRY, and __GFP_NORETRY is already checked by now.
> > > 
> > > I think printing warning regardless of __GFP_NOWARN is better because
> > > this check is similar to hungtask warning.
> > 
> > Well, if the user said to not warn we should really obey that. Why would
> > that matter?
> 
> __GFP_NOWARN is defined as "Do not print failure messages when memory
> allocation failed". It is not defined as "Do not print OOM killer messages
> when OOM killer is invoked". It is undefined that "Do not print stall
> messages when memory allocation is stalling".

Which is kind of expected as we warned only about allocation failures up
to now.

> If memory allocating threads were blocked on locks instead of doing direct
> reclaim, hungtask will be able to find stalling memory allocations without
> this change. Since direct reclaim prevents allocating threads from sleeping
> for long enough to be warned by hungtask, it is important that this change
> shall find allocating threads which cannot be warned by hungtask. That is,
> not printing warning messages for __GFP_NOWARN allocation requests looses
> the value of this change.

I dunno. If the user explicitly requests to not have allocation warning
then I think we should obey that. But this is not something I would be
really insisting hard. If others think that the check should be dropped
I can live with that.

[...]
> > > ) rather than by line number, and surround __warn_memalloc_stall() call with
> > > mutex in order to serialize warning messages because it is possible that
> > > multiple allocation requests are stalling?
> > 
> > we do not use any lock in warn_alloc_failed so why this should be any
> > different?
> 
> warn_alloc_failed() is called for both __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM and
> !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocation requests, and it is not allowed
> to sleep if !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM. Thus, we have to tolerate that
> concurrent memory allocation failure messages make dmesg output
> unreadable. But __warn_memalloc_stall() is called for only
> __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM allocation requests. Thus, we are allowed to
> sleep in order to serialize concurrent memory allocation stall
> messages.

I still do not see a point. A single line about the warning and locked
dump_stack sounds sufficient to me.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-26  8:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-23  8:15 Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:15 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:29 ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  8:29   ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  8:32   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:32     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  8:44     ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  8:44       ` Hillf Danton
2016-09-23  9:15       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23  9:15         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 14:36 ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-23 14:36   ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-23 15:02   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 15:02     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-24  3:00     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-24  3:00       ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-26  8:17       ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-09-26  8:17         ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-27 12:57         ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-27 12:57           ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-29  8:48           ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  8:48             ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-23 17:34 ` Dave Hansen
2016-09-23 17:34   ` Dave Hansen
2016-09-24 13:19   ` Balbir Singh
2016-09-24 13:19     ` Balbir Singh
2016-09-26  8:13     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-26  8:13       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-26  8:12   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-26  8:12     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  8:44 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  8:44   ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  8:44   ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: consolidate warn_alloc_failed users Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  8:44     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  9:23     ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-29  9:23       ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-09-29  8:44   ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: warn about allocations which stall for too long Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  8:44     ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  9:02     ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-29  9:02       ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-09-29  9:10       ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-29  9:10         ` Michal Hocko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160926081751.GD27030@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] mm: warn about allocations which stall for too long' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.