[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31729f1f-c0da-29e4-5777-69446daab122@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 23:19:04 +1000
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: warn about allocations which stall for too long
On 24/09/16 03:34, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 01:15 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> + /* Make sure we know about allocations which stall for too long */
>> + if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN) && time_after(jiffies, alloc_start + stall_timeout)) {
>> + pr_warn("%s: page alloction stalls for %ums: order:%u mode:%#x(%pGg)\n",
>> + current->comm, jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies-alloc_start),
>> + order, gfp_mask, &gfp_mask);
>> + stall_timeout += 10 * HZ;
>> + dump_stack();
>> + }
>
> This would make an awesome tracepoint. There's probably still plenty of
> value to having it in dmesg, but the configurability of tracepoints is
> hard to beat.
An awesome tracepoint and a great place to trigger other tracepoints. With stall timeout
increasing every time, do we only care about the first instance when we exceeded stall_timeout?
Do we debug just that instance?
Balbir Singh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists