[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <qnpkravlw4d5zic4djpku6ffghargekkohsolrnus3bvwipa7g@lfbucg3r4zbz>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:18:49 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
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, 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 Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:23:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 19-02-24 09:17:36, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > For now I think with Vlastimil's __GFP_NOWARN suggestion the code
> > becomes safe and the only risk is to lose this report. If we get cases
> > with reports missing this data, we can easily change to reserved
> > memory.
>
> This is not just about missing part of the oom report. This is annoying
> but not earth shattering. Eating into very small reserves (that might be
> the only usable memory while the system is struggling in OOM situation)
> could cause functional problems that would be non trivial to test for.
> All that for debugging purposes is just lame. If you want to reuse the code
> for a different purpose then abstract it and allocate the buffer when you
> can afford that and use preallocated on when in OOM situation.
>
> We have always went extra mile to avoid potentially disruptive
> operations from the oom handling code and I do not see any good reason
> to diverge from that principle.
Michal, I gave you the logic between dedicated reserves and system
reserves. Please stop repeating these vague what-ifs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists