Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: be more verbose for alloc_contig_range faliures | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Date | Thu, 4 Mar 2021 17:10:52 +0100 |
| |
On 04.03.21 17:01, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 09:23:49AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:28:12AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Thu 18-02-21 08:19:50, Minchan Kim wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 10:43:21AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>> On 18.02.21 10:35, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>>>> On Thu 18-02-21 10:02:43, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>> On 18.02.21 09:56, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed 17-02-21 08:36:03, Minchan Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>> alloc_contig_range is usually used on cma area or movable zone. >>>>>>>>> It's critical if the page migration fails on those areas so >>>>>>>>> dump more debugging message like memory_hotplug unless user >>>>>>>>> specifiy __GFP_NOWARN. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with David that this has a potential to generate a lot of output >>>>>>>> and it is not really clear whether it is worth it. Page isolation code >>>>>>>> already has REPORT_FAILURE mode which currently used only for the memory >>>>>>>> hotplug because this was just too noisy from the CMA path - d381c54760dc >>>>>>>> ("mm: only report isolation failures when offlining memory"). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe migration failures are less likely to fail but still. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Side note: I really dislike that uncontrolled error reporting on memory >>>>>>> offlining path we have enabled as default. Yeah, it might be useful for >>>>>>> ZONE_MOVABLE in some cases, but otherwise it's just noise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just do a "sudo stress-ng --memhotplug 1" and see the log getting flooded >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway we can discuss this in a separate thread but I think this is not >>>>>> a representative workload. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, but the essence is "this is noise", and we'll have more noise on >>>>> alloc_contig_range() as we see these calls more frequently. There should be >>>>> an explicit way to enable such *debug* messages. >>>> >>>> alloc_contig_range already has gfp_mask and it respects __GFP_NOWARN. >>>> Why shouldn't people use it if they don't care the failure? >>>> Semantically, it makes sense to me. >> >> Sorry for the late response. >> >>> >>> Well, alloc_contig_range doesn't really have to implement all the gfp >>> flags. This is a matter of practicality. alloc_contig_range is quite >>> different from the page allocator because it is to be expected that it >>> can fail the request. This is avery optimistic allocation request. That >>> would suggest that complaining about allocation failures is rather >>> noisy. >> >> That was why I'd like to approach for per-call site indicator with >> __GFP_NOWARN. Even though it was allocation from CMA, some of them >> wouldn't be critical for the failure so those wouldn't care of >> the failure. cma_alloc already has carried on "bool no_warn" >> which was changed into gfp_t recently. What alloc_contig_range >> should do is to take care of the request. >> >>> >>> Now I do understand that some users would like to see why those >>> allocations have failed. The question is whether that information is >>> generally useful or it is more of a debugging aid. The amount of >>> information is also an important aspect. It would be rather unfortunate >>> to dump thousands of pages just because they cannot be migrated. >> >> Totally, agree dumping thounds of pages as debugging aid are bad. >> Couldn't we simply ratelimit them like other places? >> >>> >>> I do not have a strong opinion here. We can make all alloc_contig_range >>> users use GFP_NOWARN by default and only skip the flag from the cma >>> allocator but I am slowly leaning towards (ab)using dynamic debugging >> >> I agree the rest of the places are GFP_NOWARN by default except CMA >> if they expect alloc_contig_range are optimistic allocation request. >> However, I'd like to tweak it for CMA - accept gfp_t from cma_alloc >> and take care of the __GFP_NOWARN since some sites of CMA could be >> fault tolerant so no need to get the warning. > > Any thought to proceed?
IMHO, add some proper debug mechanisms and don't try squeezing debug messages into "WARN" semantics.
Any alloc_contig_range() user can benefit from that.
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |