[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2 v8] oom: capture unreclaimable slab info in oom message

On 9/28/17 1:45 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Yang Shi wrote:
>> On 9/28/17 12:57 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/17 9:36 PM, 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?
>>>> I don't see the difference between regular oom path and oom path other
>>>> than calling panic() at last.
>>>> And, the slab dump may be called by panic path too, it is for both
>>>> regular and panic path.
>>> Calling a function that might cause kerneloops immediately before calling panic()
>>> would be tolerable, for the kernel will panic after all. But calling a function
>>> that might cause kerneloops when there is no plan to call panic() is a bug.
>> I got your point. slab_mutex is used to protect the list of all the
>> slabs, since we are already in oom, there should be not kmem cache
>> destroy happen during the list traverse. And, list_for_each_entry() has
>> been replaced to list_for_each_entry_safe() to make the traverse more
>> robust.
> I consider that OOM event and kmem chache destroy event can run concurrently
> because slab_mutex is not held by OOM event (and unfortunately cannot be held
> due to possibility of deadlock) in order to protect the list of all the slabs.
> I don't think replacing list_for_each_entry() with list_for_each_entry_safe()
> makes the traverse more robust, for list_for_each_entry_safe() does not defer
> freeing of memory used by list element. Rather, replacing list_for_each_entry()
> with list_for_each_entry_rcu() (and making relevant changes such as
> rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock()/synchronize_rcu()) will make the traverse safe.

I'm not sure if rcu could satisfy this case. rcu just can protect
slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy list, which is used by SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU



 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-30 00:15    [W:0.088 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site