On 10/2/17 4:20 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 28-09-17 13:36:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
On 2017/09/28 6:46, Yang Shi wrote:
Changelog v7 —> v8:
* Adopted Michal’s suggestion to dump unreclaim slab info when unreclaimable slabs amount > total user memory. Not only in oom panic path.
Holding slab_mutex inside dump_unreclaimable_slab() was refrained since V2
because there are
mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL);
mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
users. If we call dump_unreclaimable_slab() for non OOM panic path, aren't we
introducing a risk of crash (i.e. kernel panic) for regular OOM path?
yes we are
We can try mutex_trylock() from dump_unreclaimable_slab() at best.
But it is still remaining unsafe, isn't it?
using the trylock sounds like a reasonable compromise.
OK, it sounds we reach agreement on trylock. Will solve those comments
in v9.
Thanks,
Yang
--
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>
