On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:45 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu 15-02-24 06:58:42, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 1:22 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon 12-02-24 13:39:17, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > @@ -423,4 +424,18 @@ void __show_mem(unsigned int filter, nodemask_t *nodemask, int max_zone_idx)
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> > > > printk("%lu pages hwpoisoned\n", atomic_long_read(&num_poisoned_pages));
> > > > #endif
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING
> > > > + {
> > > > + struct seq_buf s;
> > > > + char *buf = 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 allocations 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 the
> > 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.
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
