On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
>
> ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS requests can dive into memory reserves without any
> restriction. They are used only in the case of emergency to allow
> forward memory reclaim progress assuming the caller should return the
> memory in a short time (e.g. {__GFP,PF}_MEMALLOC requests or OOM victim
> on the way to exit or __GFP_NOFAIL requests hitting OOM). There is no
> guarantee such request succeed because memory reserves might get
> depleted as well. This might be either a result of a bug where memory
> reserves are abused or a result of a too optimistic configuration of
> memory reserves.
>
> This patch makes sure that the administrator gets a warning when these
> requests fail with a hint that min_free_kbytes might be used to increase
> the amount of memory reserves. The warning might also help us check
> whether the issue is caused by a buggy user or the configuration. To
> prevent from flooding the logs the warning is on off but we allow it to
> trigger again after min_free_kbytes was updated. Something really bad is
> clearly going on if the warning hits even after multiple updates of
> min_free_kbytes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 70db11c27046..6a05d771cb08 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -240,6 +240,8 @@ compound_page_dtor * const compound_page_dtors[] = {
> #endif
> };
>
> +/* warn about depleted watermarks */
> +static bool warn_alloc_no_wmarks;
> int min_free_kbytes = 1024;
> int user_min_free_kbytes = -1;
>
> @@ -2642,6 +2644,13 @@ get_page_from_freelist(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, int alloc_flags,
> if (zonelist_rescan)
> goto zonelist_scan;
>
> + /* WARN only once unless min_free_kbytes is updated */
> + if (warn_alloc_no_wmarks && (alloc_flags & ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS)) {
> + warn_alloc_no_wmarks = 0;
> + WARN(1, "Memory reserves are depleted for order:%d, mode:0x%x."
> + " You might consider increasing min_free_kbytes\n",
> + order, gfp_mask);
> + }
> return NULL;
> }
>
Doesn't this warn for high-order allocations prior to the first call to
direct compaction whereas min_free_kbytes may be irrelevant? Providing
the order is good, but there's no indication when min_free_kbytes may be
helpful from this warning. WARN() isn't even going to show the state of
memory.
--
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>