[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zc4_i_ED6qjGDmhR@tiehlicka>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:44:59 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, vbabka@...e.cz,
hannes@...xchg.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, mgorman@...e.de,
dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
corbet@....net, void@...ifault.com, peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com,
david@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, mcgrof@...nel.org,
masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org,
tj@...nel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev, rppt@...nel.org,
paulmck@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
yosryahmed@...gle.com, yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
hughd@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, vvvvvv@...gle.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, ebiggers@...gle.com, ytcoode@...il.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, bristot@...hat.com,
vschneid@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com, glider@...gle.com,
elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
songmuchun@...edance.com, jbaron@...mai.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()
On Thu 15-02-24 06:58:42, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 1:22 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 12-02-24 13:39:17, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > @@ -423,4 +424,18 @@ void __show_mem(unsigned int filter, nodemask_t *nodemask, int max_zone_idx)
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> > > printk("%lu pages hwpoisoned\n", atomic_long_read(&num_poisoned_pages));
> > > #endif
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
> > > + {
> > > + struct seq_buf s;
> > > + char *buf = kmalloc(4096, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > +
> > > + if (buf) {
> > > + printk("Memory allocations:\n");
> > > + seq_buf_init(&s, buf, 4096);
> > > + alloc_tags_show_mem_report(&s);
> > > + printk("%s", buf);
> > > + kfree(buf);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +#endif
> >
> > I am pretty sure I have already objected to this. Memory allocations in
> > the oom path are simply no go unless there is absolutely no other way
> > around that. In this case the buffer could be preallocated.
>
> Good point. We will change this to a smaller buffer allocated on the
> stack and will print records one-by-one. Thanks!
__show_mem could be called with a very deep call chains. A single
pre-allocated buffer should just do ok.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists