[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHc2ee_V6SGAc_31O_ikjGGNivhdSG+2XNcc9vVmzO-9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 06:58:42 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.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, 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!
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists