Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-73437-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:24:41 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	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,
	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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()
Message-ID: <ZdTgWb7eNtF4hLw2@tiehlicka>
References: <ruxvgrm3scv7zfjzbq22on7tj2fjouydzk33k7m2kukm2n6uuw@meusbsciwuut>
 <320cd134-b767-4f29-869b-d219793ba8a1@suse.cz>
 <efxe67vo32epvmyzplmpd344nw2wf37azicpfhvkt3zz4aujm3@n27pl5j5zahj>
 <20240215180742.34470209@gandalf.local.home>
 <20240215181648.67170ed5@gandalf.local.home>
 <20240215182729.659f3f1c@gandalf.local.home>
 <mi5zw42r6c2yfg7fr2pfhfff6hudwizybwydosmdiwsml7vqna@a5iu6ksb2ltk>
 <CAJuCfpEARb8t8pc8WVZYB=yPk6G_kYGmJTMOdgiMHaYYKW3fUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZdTSAWwNng9rmKtg@tiehlicka>
 <qnpkravlw4d5zic4djpku6ffghargekkohsolrnus3bvwipa7g@lfbucg3r4zbz>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <qnpkravlw4d5zic4djpku6ffghargekkohsolrnus3bvwipa7g@lfbucg3r4zbz>

On Tue 20-02-24 12:18:49, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:23:29PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 19-02-24 09:17:36, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > For now I think with Vlastimil's __GFP_NOWARN suggestion the code
> > > becomes safe and the only risk is to lose this report. If we get cases
> > > with reports missing this data, we can easily change to reserved
> > > memory.
> > 
> > This is not just about missing part of the oom report. This is annoying
> > but not earth shattering. Eating into very small reserves (that might be
> > the only usable memory while the system is struggling in OOM situation)
> > could cause functional problems that would be non trivial to test for.
> > All that for debugging purposes is just lame. If you want to reuse the code
> > for a different purpose then abstract it and allocate the buffer when you
> > can afford that and use preallocated on when in OOM situation.
> > 
> > We have always went extra mile to avoid potentially disruptive
> > operations from the oom handling code and I do not see any good reason
> > to diverge from that principle.
> 
> Michal, I gave you the logic between dedicated reserves and system
> reserves. Please stop repeating these vague what-ifs.

Your argument makes little sense and it seems that it is impossible to
explain that to you. I gave up on discussing this further with you.

Consider NAK to any additional allocation from oom path unless you can
give very _solid_ arguments this is absolutely necessary. "It's gona be
fine and work most of the time" is not a solid argument.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs