Re: [PATCH v1] mm/page_alloc: drop pr_info_ratelimited() in alloc_contig_range()

[Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1621 bytes --]

On 1 Mar 2021, at 10:09, David Hildenbrand wrote:

> The information that some PFNs are busy is:
> a) not helpful for ordinary users: we don't even know *who* called
>    alloc_contig_range(). This is certainly not worth a pr_info.*().
> b) not really helpful for debugging: we don't have any details *why*
>    these PFNs are busy, and that is what we usually care about.
> c) not complete: there are other cases where we fail alloc_contig_range()
>    using different paths that are not getting recorded.
>
> For example, we reach this path once we succeeded in isolating pageblocks,
> but failed to migrate some pages - which can happen easily on
> ZONE_NORMAL (i.e., has_unmovable_pages() is racy) but also on ZONE_MOVABLE
> i.e., we would have to retry longer to migrate).
>
> For example via virtio-mem when unplugging memory, we can create quite
> some noise (especially with ZONE_NORMAL) that is not of interest to
> users - it's expected that some allocations may fail as memory is busy.
>
> Let's just drop that pr_info_ratelimit() and rather implement a dynamic
> debugging mechanism in the future that can give us a better reason why
> alloc_contig_range() failed on specific pages.
>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---

LGTM. I agree that the printout is not quite useful.

Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>


—
Best Regards,
Yan Zi

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 854 bytes --]