Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181010122539.GI5873@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <000000000000dc48d40577d4a587@google.com> <201810100012.w9A0Cjtn047782@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20181010085945.GC5873@dhcp22.suse.cz> <e72f799e-0634-f958-1af0-291f8577f4e8@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20181010113500.GH5873@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181010114833.GB3949@tigerII.localdomain>
 <20181010122539.GI5873@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:29:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZfVdeB-WNeLCWJvTHNeCUtR3r1R+3Qjv9XjZXPxaV2WA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in shmem_fault
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        syzbot <syzbot+77e6b28a7a7106ad0def@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, guro@fb.com,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.s@alibaba-inc.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed 10-10-18 20:48:33, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> On (10/10/18 13:35), Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > > Just flooding out of memory messages can trigger RCU stall problems.
>> > > For example, a severe skbuff_head_cache or kmalloc-512 leak bug is causing
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Quite some of them, indeed! I guess we want to rate limit the output.
>> > What about the following?
>>
>> A bit unrelated, but while we are at it:
>>
>>   I like it when we rate-limit printk-s that lookup the system.
>> But it seems that default rate-limit values are not always good enough,
>> DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL / DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST can still be too
>> verbose. For instance, when we have a very slow IPMI emulated serial
>> console -- e.g. baud rate at 57600. DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL and
>> DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST can add new OOM headers and backtraces faster
>> than we evict them.
>>
>> Does it sound reasonable enough to use larger than default rate-limits
>> for printk-s in OOM print-outs? OOM reports tend to be somewhat large
>> and the reported numbers are not always *very* unique.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I do not really care about the current inerval/burst values. This change
> should be done seprately and ideally with some numbers.

I think Sergey meant that this place may need to use
larger-than-default values because it prints lots of output per
instance (whereas the default limit is more tuned for cases that print
just 1 line).

I've found at least 1 place that uses DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL*10:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c#L8365
Probably we need something similar here.