linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: add tracepoints for oom reaper-related events

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:43:35 +0100
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: add tracepoints for oom reaper-related events

Hi Andrew!

Can you, please, pull this patch?

Thank you!

Roman

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:13:38AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 01-06-17 19:41:13, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 06:39:29PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 30-05-17 19:52:31, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > >From c57e3674efc609f8364f5e228a2c1309cfe99901 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > > > Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 17:37:55 +0100
> > > > Subject: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: add tracepoints for oom reaper-related events
> > > > 
> > > > During the debugging of the problem described in
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/17/542 and fixed by Tetsuo Handa
> > > > in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/19/383 , I've found that
> > > > the existing debug output is not really useful to understand
> > > > issues related to the oom reaper.
> > > > 
> > > > So, I assume, that adding some tracepoints might help with
> > > > debugging of similar issues.
> > > > 
> > > > Trace the following events:
> > > > 1) a process is marked as an oom victim,
> > > > 2) a process is added to the oom reaper list,
> > > > 3) the oom reaper starts reaping process's mm,
> > > > 4) the oom reaper finished reaping,
> > > > 5) the oom reaper skips reaping.
> > > > 
> > > > How it works in practice? Below is an example which show
> > > > how the problem mentioned above can be found: one process is added
> > > > twice to the oom_reaper list:
> > > > 
> > > > $ cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing
> > > > $ echo "oom:mark_victim" > set_event
> > > > $ echo "oom:wake_reaper" >> set_event
> > > > $ echo "oom:skip_task_reaping" >> set_event
> > > > $ echo "oom:start_task_reaping" >> set_event
> > > > $ echo "oom:finish_task_reaping" >> set_event
> > > > $ cat trace_pipe
> > > >         allocate-502   [001] ....    91.836405: mark_victim: pid=502
> > > >         allocate-502   [001] .N..    91.837356: wake_reaper: pid=502
> > > >         allocate-502   [000] .N..    91.871149: wake_reaper: pid=502
> > > >       oom_reaper-23    [000] ....    91.871177: start_task_reaping: pid=502
> > > >       oom_reaper-23    [000] .N..    91.879511: finish_task_reaping: pid=502
> > > >       oom_reaper-23    [000] ....    91.879580: skip_task_reaping: pid=502
> > > 
> > > OK, this is much better! The clue here would be that we got 2
> > > wakeups for the same task, right?
> > > Do you think it would make sense to put more context to those
> > > tracepoints? E.g. skip_task_reaping can be due to lock contention or the
> > > mm gone. wake_reaper is similar.
> > 
> > I agree, that some context might be useful under some circumstances,
> > but I don't think we should add any additional fields until we will have some examples
> > of where this data is actually useful. If we will need it, we can easily add it later.
> 
> OK, fair enough.
> 
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs