[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=+i9TJcnFhwef+efw8yBynZ28M2tWiYvuYS0aVoD4yt_+0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 22:18:47 +0900
From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To: Fangzheng Zhang <fangzheng.zhang@...soc.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tkjos@...gle.com,
Fangzheng Zhang <fangzheng.zhang1003@...il.com>, Yuming Han <yuming.han@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce panic function when slub leaks
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 12:23 PM Fangzheng Zhang
<fangzheng.zhang@...soc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
Hi Fangzheng,
> A method to detect slub leaks by monitoring its usage in real time
> on the page allocation path of the slub. When the slub occupancy
> exceeds the user-set value, it is considered that the slub is leaking
> at this time
I'm not sure why this should be a kernel feature. Why not write a user
script that parses
MemTotal: and Slab: part of /proc/meminfo file and generates a log
entry or an alarm?
> and a panic operation will be triggered immediately.
I don't think it would be a good idea to panic unnecessarily.
IMO it is not proper to panic when the kernel can still run.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Hyeonggon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists