Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-73705-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Zc3X8XlnrZmh2mgN@tiehlicka> <CAJuCfpHc2ee_V6SGAc_31O_ikjGGNivhdSG+2XNcc9vVmzO-9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zc4_i_ED6qjGDmhR@tiehlicka> <CAJuCfpHq3N0h6dGieHxD6Au+qs=iKAifFrHAMxTsHTcDrOwSQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <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> <e017b7bc-d747-46e6-a89d-4ce558ed79b0@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <e017b7bc-d747-46e6-a89d-4ce558ed79b0@suse.cz>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:59:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFYAnDcyBtnPK_fc6PmFMJ6B4OqS=F7-QTidZ+QtJQx1A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, 
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, 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, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:27=E2=80=AFAM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> w=
rote:
>
> On 2/19/24 18:17, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:56=E2=80=AFPM Kent Overstreet
> > <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 06:27:29PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> > All this, and we are still worried about 4k for useful debugging :-/
> >
> > I was planning to refactor this function to print one record at a time
> > with a smaller buffer but after discussing with Kent, he has plans to
> > reuse this function and having the report in one buffer is needed for
> > that.
>
> We are printing to console, AFAICS all the code involved uses plain print=
k()
> I think it would be way easier to have a function using printk() for this
> use case than the seq_buf which is more suitable for /proc and friends. T=
hen
> all concerns about buffers would be gone. It wouldn't be that much of a c=
ode
> duplication?

Ok, after discussing this with Kent, I'll change this patch to provide
a function returning N top consumers (the array and N will be provided
by the caller) and then we can print one record at a time with much
less memory needed. That should address reusability concerns, will use
memory more efficiently and will allow for more flexibility (more/less
than 10 records if needed).
Thanks for the feedback, everyone!

>
> >> Every additional 4k still needs justification. And whether we burn a
> >> reserve on this will have no observable effect on user output in
> >> remotely normal situations; if this allocation ever fails, we've alrea=
dy
> >> been in an OOM situation for awhile and we've already printed out this
> >> report many times, with less memory pressure where the allocation woul=
d
> >> have succeeded.
> >
> > I'm not sure this claim will always be true, specifically in the case
> > of low-end devices with relatively low amounts of reserves and in the
>
> That's right, GFP_ATOMIC failures can easily happen without prior OOMs.
> Consider a system where userspace allocations fill the memory as they
> usually do, up to high watermark. Then a burst of packets is received and
> handled by GFP_ATOMIC allocations that deplete the reserves and can't cau=
se
> OOMs (OOM is when we fail to reclaim anything, but we are allocating from=
 a
> context that can't reclaim), so the very first report would be an GFP_ATO=
MIC
> failure and now it can't allocate that buffer for printing.
>
> I'm sure more such scenarios exist, Cc: Tetsuo who I recall was an expert=
 on
> this topic.
>
> > presence of a possible quick memory usage spike. We should also
> > consider a case when panic_on_oom is set. All we get is one OOM
> > report, so we get only one chance to capture this report. In any case,
> > I don't yet have data to prove or disprove this claim but it will be
> > interesting to test it with data from the field once the feature is
> > deployed.
> >
> > 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.
>