lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [28]   [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
From
Date
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.

>
> Thanks,
> Yang
>
> >
> > We can try mutex_trylock() from dump_unreclaimable_slab() at best.
> > But it is still remaining unsafe, isn't it?
> >
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-28 21:58    [W:0.057 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site