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: 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
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>

  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 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 \
    --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.