lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC Patch 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Clarify OOM message on size of hugetlb and requested hugepages total
* Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> [170913 08:43]:
> On Mon 11-09-17 11:48:20, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > Change the output of hugetlb_show_meminfo to give the size of the
> > hugetlb in more than just Kb and add a warning message if the requested
> > hugepages is larger than the allocated hugepages. The warning message
> > for very badly configured hugepages has been removed in favour of this
> > method.
> >
> > The new messages look like this:
> > ----
> > Node 0 hugepages_total=1 hugepages_free=1 hugepages_surp=0
> > hugepages_size=1.00 GiB
> >
> > Node 0 hugepages_total=1326 hugepages_free=1326 hugepages_surp=0
> > hugepages_size=2.00 MiB
> >
> > hugepage_size 1.00 GiB: Requested 5 hugepages (5.00 GiB) but 1 hugepages
> > (1.00 GiB) were allocated.
> >
> > hugepage_size 2.00 MiB: Requested 4000 hugepages (7.81 GiB) but 1326
> > hugepages (2.59 GiB) were allocated.
> > ----
> >
> > The old messages look like this:
> > ----
> > Node 0 hugepages_total=1 hugepages_free=1 hugepages_surp=0
> > hugepages_size=1048576kB
> >
> > Node 0 hugepages_total=1435 hugepages_free=1435 hugepages_surp=0
> > hugepages_size=2048kB
> > ----
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@Oracle.com>
>
> To be honest, I really dislike this. It doesn't really add anything
> really new to the OOM report. We already know how much memory is
> unreclaimable because it is reserved for hugetlb usage. Why does the
> requested size make any difference? We could fail to allocate requested
> number of pages because of memory pressure or fragmentation without any
> sign of misconfiguration.

Okay, thanks. I was trying to address the issues you had with the
previous logging addition.

I understand that the OOM report is clear to many, but I thought it
would be more clear if the hugepage size was printed in a human readable
format instead of KB, especially with platforms supporting a lot of
huge page sizes and we already use the formatting elsewhere.

My thoughts for the requested size was to expose the failure to allocate
a resource which currently doesn't have any reporting back to the user -
except on boot failures, which you also disliked. I thought reporting
in the OOM message would be less of a change than reporting at
allocation time and it would be more clear what happened on poorly
configured systems as the failure would be printed closer to the panic.

>
> Also req_max_huge_pages would have to be per NUMA node othwerise you are
> just losing information when allocation hugetlb pages via sysfs per node
> interface.
>

Thank you for your thorough review and time,
Liam

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-13 17:53    [W:0.058 / U:0.756 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site