Re: [PATCH 0/2 v8] oom: capture unreclaimable slab info in oom message

[Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>]

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?
> > 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>