Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()

Kent Overstreet
2024-02-15T20:33:45Z

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 09:22:07PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 2/15/24 19:29, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:47:59AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:45 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu 15-02-24 06:58:42, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 1:22 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.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.
> >>
> >> Ack. Will do.
> >
> > No, we're not going to permanently burn 4k here.
> >
> > It's completely fine if the allocation fails, there's nothing "unsafe"
> > about doing a GFP_ATOMIC allocation here.
>
> Well, I think without __GFP_NOWARN it will cause a warning and thus
> recursion into __show_mem(), potentially infinite? Which is of course
> trivial to fix, but I'd myself rather sacrifice a bit of memory to get this
> potentially very useful output, if I enabled the profiling. The necessary
> memory overhead of page_ext and slabobj_ext makes the printing buffer
> overhead negligible in comparison?

__GFP_NOWARN is a good point, we should have that.

But - and correct me if I'm wrong here - doesn't an OOM kick in well
before GFP_ATOMIC 4k allocations are failing? I'd expect the system to
be well and truly hosed at that point.

If we want this report to be 100% reliable, then yes the preallocated
buffer makes sense - but I don't think 100% makes sense here; I think we
can accept ~99% and give back that 4k.