linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Show slab memory usage on OOM and SysRq-M

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4624D7D5.1000007@sw.ru>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:21:09 +0400
From:	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
To:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	devel@...nvz.org, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Show slab memory usage on OOM and SysRq-M

Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
> 
> At some point in time, I wrote:
>>> So, now we have two locks protecting cache_chain? Please explain why
>>> you can't use the mutex.
> 
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> Because OOM can actually happen with this mutex locked. For example
>> kmem_cache_create() locks it and calls kmalloc(), or write to
>> /proc/slabinfo also locks it and calls do_tune_cpu_caches(). This is
>> very rare case and the deadlock is VERY unlikely to happen, but it
>> will be very disappointing if it happens.
>>
>> Moreover, I put the call to show_slabs() into sysrq handler, so it may
>> be called from atomic context.
>>
>> Making mutex_trylock() is possible, but we risk of loosing this info
>> in case OOM happens while the mutex is locked for cache shrinking (see
>> cache_reap() for example)...
>>
>> So we have a choice - either we have an additional lock on a slow and
>> rare paths and show this info for sure, or we do not have a lock, but
>> have a risk of loosing this info.
> 
> I don't worry about performance as much I do about maintenance. Do you 
> know if mutex_trylock() is a problem in practice? Could we perhaps fix 

No, this mutex is unlocked most of the time, but I have 
already been in the situations when the information that 
might not get on the screen did not actually get there in 
the most inappropriate moment :)

> the worst offenders who are holding cache_chain_mutex for a long time?
> 
> In any case, if we do end up adding the lock, please add a BIG FAT COMMENT 
> explaining why we have it.

OK. I will keep this lock unless someone have a forcible
argument for not doing this.

> At some point in time, I wrote:
>>> I would also drop the OFF_SLAB bits because it really doesn't matter
>>> that much for your purposes. Besides, you're already per-node and
>>> per-CPU caches here which attribute to much more memory on NUMA setups
>>> for example.
>  
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> This gives us a more precise information :) The precision is less than 1%
>> so if nobody likes/needs it, this may be dropped.
> 
> My point is that the "precision" is useless here. We probably waste more 
> memory in the caches which are not accounted here. So I'd just drop it.

OK. I will rework the patch according to your comments.

Pavel.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/