From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, page_alloc: reintroduce page allocation stall warning
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:17:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260329201733.6a4647ade4751e761034b9b9@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <231154f8-a3c3-229a-31a7-f91ab8ec1773@google.com>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 18:08:52 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> Previously, we had warnings when a single page allocation took longer
> than reasonably expected. This was introduced in commit 63f53dea0c98
> ("mm: warn about allocations which stall for too long").
>
> The warning was subsequently reverted in commit 400e22499dd9 ("mm: don't
> warn about allocations which stall for too long") but for reasons
> unrelated to the warning itself.
>
> Page allocation stalls in excess of 10 seconds are always useful to debug
> because they can result in severe userspace unresponsiveness. Adding
> this artifact can be used to correlate with userspace going out to lunch
> and to understand the state of memory at the time.
>
> There should be a reasonable expectation that this warning will never
> trigger given it is very passive, it will only be emitted when a page
> allocation takes longer than 10 seconds. If it does trigger, this
> reveals an issue that should be fixed: a single page allocation should
> never loop for more than 10 seconds without oom killing to make memory
> available.
>
> Unlike the original implementation, this implementation only reports
> stalls once for the system every 10 seconds. Otherwise, many concurrent
> reclaimers could spam the kernel log unnecessarily. Stalls are only
> reported when calling into direct reclaim.
>
> ...
>
> +static void check_alloc_stall_warn(gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *nodemask,
> + unsigned int order, unsigned long alloc_start_time)
> +{
> + static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(alloc_stall_lock);
> + unsigned long stall_msecs = jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies - alloc_start_time);
> +
> + if (likely(stall_msecs < ALLOC_STALL_WARN_MSECS))
> + return;
> + if (time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(alloc_stall_warn_jiffies)))
> + return;
> + if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOWARN)
> + return;
> +
> + if (!spin_trylock(&alloc_stall_lock))
> + return;
> +
> + if (time_after_eq(jiffies, alloc_stall_warn_jiffies)) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(alloc_stall_warn_jiffies,
> + jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(ALLOC_STALL_WARN_MSECS));
> + spin_unlock(&alloc_stall_lock);
> +
> + pr_warn("%s: page allocation stall for %lu secs: order:%d, mode:%#x(%pGg) nodemask=%*pbl",
> + current->comm, stall_msecs / MSEC_PER_SEC, order, gfp_mask, &gfp_mask,
> + nodemask_pr_args(nodemask));
Snould we use dump_page() in here? It prints more info, does the
snapshotting thing.
> + cpuset_print_current_mems_allowed();
> + pr_cont("\n");
> + dump_stack();
> + warn_alloc_show_mem(gfp_mask, nodemask);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock(&alloc_stall_lock);
> +}
> +
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-30 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-22 3:03 [RFC] " David Rientjes
2026-03-22 20:28 ` David Rientjes
2026-03-23 14:24 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-03-24 1:06 ` David Rientjes
2026-03-23 16:53 ` Michal Hocko
2026-03-24 1:13 ` David Rientjes
2026-03-24 8:05 ` Petr Mladek
2026-03-23 19:05 ` Andrew Morton
2026-03-30 1:08 ` [patch] " David Rientjes
2026-03-30 3:17 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2026-03-30 14:06 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-03-30 13:54 ` Michal Hocko
2026-03-30 15:13 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-03-30 22:34 ` David Rientjes
2026-03-30 15:00 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-03-30 22:42 ` [patch v2] " David Rientjes
2026-03-31 1:20 ` [patch v3] " David Rientjes
2026-03-31 3:02 ` Shakeel Butt
2026-03-31 7:54 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <69cb3957.5d0a0220.93499.af4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
2026-03-31 16:44 ` David Rientjes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260329201733.6a4647ade4751e761034b9b9@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox