From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933307AbeALElk (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Thu, 11 Jan 2018 23:41:40 -0500
Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:42663 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932860AbeALElj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 11 Jan 2018 23:41:39 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov5s45p02AkoLhl11e6J0XfiUwjZ9y4IQZj0jXVRoHj1Uy/Lkh1Lgk4NTh2FI79Kwfh5tJtfw==
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:41:33 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: ratelimit end_swap_bio_write() error
Message-ID: <20180112044133.GA4314@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20180106043407.25193-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20180106094124.GB16576@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180106100313.GA527@tigerII.localdomain>
 <20180106133417.GA23629@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180108015818.GA533@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20180108083742.GB5717@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180108102234.GA818@jagdpanzerIV>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180108102234.GA818@jagdpanzerIV>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On (01/08/18 19:22), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > Your changelog is rather modest on the information.
> 
> fair point!
> 
> > Could you be more specific on how the problem actually happens how
> > likely it is?
> 
> ok. so what we have is
> 
> 	slow_path / swap-out page
> 	 __zram_bvec_write(page)
> 	  compressed_page = zcomp_compress(page)
> 	   zs_malloc(compressed_page)
> 	    // no available zspage found, need to allocate new
> 	     alloc_zspage()
> 	     {
> 		for (i = 0; i < class->pages_per_zspage; i++)
> 		    page = alloc_page(gfp);
> 		    if (!page)
> 			    return NULL
> 	     }
> 
> 	 return -ENOMEM
> 	...
> 	printk("Write-error on swap-device...");
> 
> 
> zspage-s can consist of up to ->pages_per_zspage normal pages.
> if alloc_page() fails then we can't allocate the entire zspage,
> so we can't store the swapped out page, so it remains in ram
> and we don't make any progress. so we try to swap another page
> and may be do the whole zs_malloc()->alloc_zspage() again, may
> be not. depending on how bad the OOM situation is there can be
> few or many "Write-error on swap-device" errors.
> 
> > And again, I do not think the throttling is an appropriate counter
> > measure. We do want to print those messages when a critical situation
> > happens. If we have a fallback then simply do not print at all.
> 
> sure, but with the ratelimited printk we still print those messages.
> we just don't print it for every single page we failed to write
> to the device. the existing error messages can (*sometimes*) be noisy
> and not very informative - "Write-error on swap-device (%u:%u:%llu)\n";
> it's not like 1000 of those tell more than 1 or 10.

Michal, does that make sense? with the updated/reworked commit
message will the patch be good enough?

	-ss