Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 01-06-17 20:43:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Cong Wang has reported a lockup when running LTP memcg_stress test [1]. > > This seems to be on an old and not pristine kernel. Does it happen also > on the vanilla up-to-date kernel? 4.9 is not an old kernel! It might be close to the kernel version which enterprise distributions would choose for their next long term supported version. And please stop saying "can you reproduce your problem with latest linux-next (or at least latest linux)?" Not everybody can use the vanilla up-to-date kernel! What I'm pushing via kmallocwd patch is to prepare for overlooked problems so that enterprise distributors can collect information and identify what changes are needed to be backported. As long as you ignore problems not happened with latest linux-next (or at least latest linux), enterprise distribution users can do nothing. > > [...] > > Therefore, this patch uses a mutex dedicated for warn_alloc() like > > suggested in [3]. > > As I've said previously. We have rate limiting and if that doesn't work > out well, let's tune it. The lock should be the last resort to go with. > We already throttle show_mem, maybe we can throttle dump_stack as well, > although it sounds a bit strange that this adds so much to the picture. Ratelimiting never works well. It randomly drops information which is useful for debugging. Uncontrolled concurrent dump_stack() causes lockups. And restricting dump_stack() drops more information. What we should do is to yield CPU time to operations which might do useful things (let threads not doing memory allocation; e.g. let printk kernel threads to flush pending buffer, let console drivers write the output to consoles, let watchdog kernel threads report what is happening). When memory allocation request is stalling, serialization via waiting for a lock does help. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
