Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page

From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
Cc: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
	Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
	Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
	"Linux F2FS DEV,
	Mailing List"  <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
	lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mm: mkfs.ext4 invoked oom-killer on i386 - pagecache_get_page
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:09:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200612120904.GA8641@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+G9fYsjH8vOTkSKGa5vgC=0fEXuC5UnGsZOirHxH9nOJSHPdA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri 12-06-20 15:13:22, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 29-05-20 11:49:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 29-05-20 02:56:44, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > Yafang Shao writes:
> > > Agreed. Even if e{low,min} might still have some rough edges I am
> > > completely puzzled how we could end up oom if none of the protection
> > > path triggers which the additional debugging should confirm. Maybe my
> > > debugging patch is incomplete or used incorrectly (maybe it would be
> > > esier to use printk rather than trace_printk?).
> >
> > It would be really great if we could move forward. While the fix (which
> > has been dropped from mmotm) is not super urgent I would really like to
> > understand how it could hit the observed behavior. Can we double check
> > that the debugging patch really doesn't trigger (e.g.
> > s@trace_printk@printk in the first step)?
> 
> Please suggest to me the way to get more debug information
> by providing kernel debug patches and extra kernel configs.
> 
> I have applied your debug patch and tested on top on linux next 20200612
> but did not find any printk output while running mkfs -t ext4 /drive test case.

Have you tried s@trace_printk@printk@ in the patch? AFAIK trace_printk
doesn't dump anything into the printk ring buffer. You would have to
look into trace ring buffer.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs