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: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:48:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160929084815.GD408@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201609272157.DHI95301.HOFFFOVJLtSMQO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Tue 27-09-16 21:57:26, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > ) 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.
>
> printk() is slow operation. It is possible that two allocation requests
> start within time period needed for completing warn_alloc_failed().
> It is possible that multiple concurrent allocations are stalling when
> one of them cannot be satisfied. The consequence is multiple concurrent
> timeouts corrupting dmesg.
> http://I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/tmp/serial-20160927-nolock.txt.xz
> (Please ignore Oops at do_task_stat(); it is irrelevant to this topic.)
>
> If we guard it with mutex_lock(&oom_lock)/mutex_unlock(&oom_lock),
> no corruption.
> http://I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/tmp/serial-20160927-lock.txt.xz
I have just posted v2 which reuses warn_alloc_failed infrastructure. If
we want to have a lock there then it should be a separate patch imho.
Ideally with and example from your above kernel log.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:48:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160929084815.GD408@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201609272157.DHI95301.HOFFFOVJLtSMQO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Tue 27-09-16 21:57:26, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > ) 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.
>
> printk() is slow operation. It is possible that two allocation requests
> start within time period needed for completing warn_alloc_failed().
> It is possible that multiple concurrent allocations are stalling when
> one of them cannot be satisfied. The consequence is multiple concurrent
> timeouts corrupting dmesg.
> http://I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/tmp/serial-20160927-nolock.txt.xz
> (Please ignore Oops at do_task_stat(); it is irrelevant to this topic.)
>
> If we guard it with mutex_lock(&oom_lock)/mutex_unlock(&oom_lock),
> no corruption.
> http://I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/tmp/serial-20160927-lock.txt.xz
I have just posted v2 which reuses warn_alloc_failed infrastructure. If
we want to have a lock there then it should be a separate patch imho.
Ideally with and example from your above kernel log.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-29 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-23 8:15 [PATCH] mm: warn about allocations which stall for too long 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
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 [this message]
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=20160929084815.GD408@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 \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.