Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67519-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240212213922.783301-1-surenb@google.com> <20240212213922.783301-32-surenb@google.com>
 <Zc3X8XlnrZmh2mgN@tiehlicka> <CAJuCfpHc2ee_V6SGAc_31O_ikjGGNivhdSG+2XNcc9vVmzO-9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zc4_i_ED6qjGDmhR@tiehlicka> <CAJuCfpHq3N0h6dGieHxD6Au+qs=iKAifFrHAMxTsHTcDrOwSQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ruxvgrm3scv7zfjzbq22on7tj2fjouydzk33k7m2kukm2n6uuw@meusbsciwuut>
In-Reply-To: <ruxvgrm3scv7zfjzbq22on7tj2fjouydzk33k7m2kukm2n6uuw@meusbsciwuut>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:33:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFCu73eCMo-hd=vvvMhGjEuOwvkcGb2DuDssHC5soNFGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, 
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, 
	dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, 
	corbet@lwn.net, void@manifault.com, peterz@infradead.org, 
	juri.lelli@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, 
	arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com, 
	david@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org, 
	nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, 
	rppt@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, 
	yosryahmed@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, 
	hughd@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, 
	ndesaulniers@google.com, vvvvvv@google.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, 
	ebiggers@google.com, ytcoode@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, 
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, 
	bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, 
	iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, glider@google.com, 
	elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, 
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, rientjes@google.com, 
	minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, 
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, 
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:29=E2=80=AFAM Kent Overstreet
<kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:47:59AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:45=E2=80=AFAM 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=E2=80=AFAM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.c=
om> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon 12-02-24 13:39:17, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > @@ -423,4 +424,18 @@ void __show_mem(unsigned int filter, nodem=
ask_t *nodemask, int max_zone_idx)
> > > > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> > > > > >       printk("%lu pages hwpoisoned\n", atomic_long_read(&num_po=
isoned_pages));
> > > > > >  #endif
> > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
> > > > > > +     {
> > > > > > +             struct seq_buf s;
> > > > > > +             char *buf =3D 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 allocati=
ons 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 th=
e
> > > > 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.

We don't need 4K here. Just enough to store one line and then print
these 10 highest allocations one line at a time. This way we can also
change that 10 to any higher number we like without any side effects.

>
> It's completely fine if the allocation fails, there's nothing "unsafe"
> about doing a GFP_ATOMIC allocation here.