lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [2]   [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


On 10/2/17 4:20 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 28-09-17 13:36:57, 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?
>
> yes we are
>
>> We can try mutex_trylock() from dump_unreclaimable_slab() at best.
>> But it is still remaining unsafe, isn't it?
>
> using the trylock sounds like a reasonable compromise.

OK, it sounds we reach agreement on trylock. Will solve those comments
in v9.

Thanks,
Yang

>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-02 17:47    [W:0.159 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site