On 2/15/24 19:29, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:47:59AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, we're not going to permanently burn 4k here.
>
> It's completely fine if the allocation fails, there's nothing "unsafe"
> about doing a GFP_ATOMIC allocation here.
Well, I think without __GFP_NOWARN it will cause a warning and thus
recursion into __show_mem(), potentially infinite? Which is of course
trivial to fix, but I'd myself rather sacrifice a bit of memory to get this
potentially very useful output, if I enabled the profiling. The necessary
memory overhead of page_ext and slabobj_ext makes the printing buffer
overhead negligible in comparison?
