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;
Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:17:30 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in shmem_fault
Message-ID: <20181011011730.GA728@jagdpanzerIV>
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>
 <CACT4Y+ZfVdeB-WNeLCWJvTHNeCUtR3r1R+3Qjv9XjZXPxaV2WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+bqJeKum7jessccWQF+4BmabnVy48aqHEOypioKwQAMTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b7727ff0-b34f-25a2-b9e7-56e70d9349c4@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b7727ff0-b34f-25a2-b9e7-56e70d9349c4@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (10/10/18 22:10), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> Since printk() is a significantly CPU consuming operation, I think that what
> we need to guarantee is interval between the end of an OOM killer messages
> and the beginning of next OOM killer messages is large enough. For example,
> setup a timer with 5 seconds timeout upon the end of an OOM killer messages
> and check whether the timer already fired upon the beginning of next OOM killer
> messages.

Hmm, there is no way to make sure that previous OOM report made it to
consoles. So maybe timer approach will be as good as rate-limiting.

	-ss