Re: [PATCH v3 31/35] lib: add memory allocations report in show_mem()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux