On Tue 09-03-21 09:27:51, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 05:32:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 09-03-21 08:15:41, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:32:51AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 08-03-21 12:20:47, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > alloc_contig_range is usually used on cma area or movable zone.
> > > > > It's critical if the page migration fails on those areas so
> > > > > dump more debugging message.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with this statement. alloc_contig_range is not a reliable
> > > > allocator. Any user, be it CMA or direct users of alloc_contig_range
> > > > have to deal with allocation failures. Debugging information can be
> > > > still useful but considering migration failures critical is
> > > > overstatement to say the least.
> > >
> > > Fair enough. Let's change it.
> > >
> > > "Currently, debugging CMA allocation failure is too hard
> > > due to lacking of page information. alloc_contig_range is
> > > proper place to dump them since it has migrate-failed page
> > > list."
> >
> > "Currently, debugging CMA allocation failures is quite limited. The most
> > commong source of these failures seems to be page migration which
> > doesn't provide any useful information on the reason of the failure by
> > itself. alloc_contig_range can report those failures as it holds a list
> > of migrate-failed pages."
>
> Will take it. Thanks.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > > Somebody more familiar with the dynamic debugging infrastructure needs
> > > > to have a look but from from a quick look it seems ok.
> > > >
> > > > Do we really need all the ugly ifdefery, though? Don't we want to have
> > > > this compiled in all the time and just rely on the static branch managed
> > > > by the dynamic debugging framework?
> > >
> > > I have no further idea to make it simple while we keep the flexibility
> > > for arguments and print format.
> > >
> > > #if defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG) || \
> > > (defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE) && defined(DYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE))
> > > static void alloc_contig_dump_pages(struct list_head *page_list)
> > > {
> > > static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs,
> > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
> > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST);
> > >
> > > DEFINE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_METADATA(descriptor,
> > > "migrate failure");
> > > if (DYNAMIC_DEBUG_BRANCH(descriptor) && __ratelimit(&_rs)) {
> > > struct page *page;
> > >
> > > WARN(1, "failed callstack");
> > > list_for_each_entry(page, page_list, lru)
> > > dump_page(page, "migration failure");
> > > }
> > > }
> > > #else
> > > static inline void alloc_contig_dump_pages(struct list_head *page_list)
> > > {
> > > }
> > > #endif
> >
> > First, you would be much better off by droping the rate limitting. I am
> > nt really convinced this is really necessary as this is a debugging aid
> > enabled on request. A single list can be large enough to swamp logs so
> > why bother?
>
> No problem. Just added since David mentioned hugetlb pages are easily
> fail to mgirate at this moment.
Well a single hugetlb allocation can swamp the log already because the
ratelimit as suggested above will allow the full list to be dumped.
Moreover if there is an additional failure right afterwards then it
would be allowed as well. Not to mention that rate limiting is terrible
for long taking operations by design as it doesn't know when the
operation ended. So above construct is merely a code complication rather
than a useful tool to reduce the log flow.
> Yes, We could add the ratelimit if we get complain.
>
> >
> > Also are all those CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG* ifdefs necessary? Can we
> > simply enable DYNAMIC_DEBUG for page_alloc as I've suggested above?
>
> They are different usecases.
>
> With DYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE with CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE,
> it works for only specific compile flags as you suggested.
> (CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE is requirement to work DYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE.
>
> With CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, user could enable/disable every dynamic
> debug places without needing DYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE flags for source
> files.
>
> Both usecase makes sense to me.
Well, this is more of a question for dynamic debugging maintainers. But
it would be really great to reduce the ifdefery as much as possible.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
