Message-ID: <d83a03dd-fdff-ed62-a2ad-77b25d8249f0@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:10:52 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, joaodias@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: be more verbose for alloc_contig_range faliures

On 04.03.21 17:01, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 09:23:49AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:28:12AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 18-02-21 08:19:50, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 10:43:21AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 18.02.21 10:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu 18-02-21 10:02:43, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18.02.21 09:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed 17-02-21 08:36:03, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> alloc_contig_range is usually used on cma area or movable zone.
>>>>>>>>> It's critical if the page migration fails on those areas so
>>>>>>>>> dump more debugging message like memory_hotplug unless user
>>>>>>>>> specifiy __GFP_NOWARN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with David that this has a potential to generate a lot of output
>>>>>>>> and it is not really clear whether it is worth it. Page isolation code
>>>>>>>> already has REPORT_FAILURE mode which currently used only for the memory
>>>>>>>> hotplug because this was just too noisy from the CMA path - d381c54760dc
>>>>>>>> ("mm: only report isolation failures when offlining memory").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe migration failures are less likely to fail but still.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Side note: I really dislike that uncontrolled error reporting on memory
>>>>>>> offlining path we have enabled as default. Yeah, it might be useful for
>>>>>>> ZONE_MOVABLE in some cases, but otherwise it's just noise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just do a "sudo stress-ng --memhotplug 1" and see the log getting flooded
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway we can discuss this in a separate thread but I think this is not
>>>>>> a representative workload.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, but the essence is "this is noise", and we'll have more noise on
>>>>> alloc_contig_range() as we see these calls more frequently. There should be
>>>>> an explicit way to enable such *debug* messages.
>>>>
>>>> alloc_contig_range already has gfp_mask and it respects __GFP_NOWARN.
>>>> Why shouldn't people use it if they don't care the failure?
>>>> Semantically, it makes sense to me.
>>
>> Sorry for the late response.
>>
>>>
>>> Well, alloc_contig_range doesn't really have to implement all the gfp
>>> flags. This is a matter of practicality. alloc_contig_range is quite
>>> different from the page allocator because it is to be expected that it
>>> can fail the request. This is avery optimistic allocation request. That
>>> would suggest that complaining about allocation failures is rather
>>> noisy.
>>
>> That was why I'd like to approach for per-call site indicator with
>> __GFP_NOWARN. Even though it was allocation from CMA, some of them
>> wouldn't be critical for the failure so those wouldn't care of
>> the failure. cma_alloc already has carried on "bool no_warn"
>> which was changed into gfp_t recently. What alloc_contig_range
>> should do is to take care of the request.
>>
>>>
>>> Now I do understand that some users would like to see why those
>>> allocations have failed. The question is whether that information is
>>> generally useful or it is more of a debugging aid. The amount of
>>> information is also an important aspect. It would be rather unfortunate
>>> to dump thousands of pages just because they cannot be migrated.
>>
>> Totally, agree dumping thounds of pages as debugging aid are bad.
>> Couldn't we simply ratelimit them like other places?
>>
>>>
>>> I do not have a strong opinion here. We can make all alloc_contig_range
>>> users use GFP_NOWARN by default and only skip the flag from the cma
>>> allocator but I am slowly leaning towards (ab)using dynamic debugging
>>
>> I agree the rest of the places are GFP_NOWARN by default except CMA
>> if they expect alloc_contig_range are optimistic allocation request.
>> However, I'd like to tweak it for CMA - accept gfp_t from cma_alloc
>> and take care of the __GFP_NOWARN since some sites of CMA could be
>> fault tolerant so no need to get the warning.
> 
> Any thought to proceed?

IMHO, add some proper debug mechanisms and don't try squeezing debug 
messages into "WARN" semantics.

Any alloc_contig_range() user can benefit from that.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists