lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/hugetl.c: warn out if expected count of huge pages adjustment is not achieved
From
Date
Cc: Michal

On 8/10/20 7:11 PM, Baoquan He wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 07/23/20 at 11:21am, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 7/23/20 2:11 AM, Baoquan He wrote:
> ...
>>>> But is kernel expected to warn for all such situations where the user
>>>> requested resources could not be allocated completely ? Otherwise, it
>>>> does not make sense to add an warning for just one such situation.
>>>
>>> It's not for just one such situation, we have already had one to warn
>>> out in mm/hugetlb.c, please check hugetlb_hstate_alloc_pages().
>>
>> Those are a little different in that they are warnings based on kernel
>> command line parameters.
>>
>>> As Mike said, in one time of persistent huge page number setting,
>>> comparing the old value with the new vlaue is good enough for customer
>>> to get the information. However, if customer want to detect and analyze
>>> previous setting failure, logging message will be helpful. So I think
>>> logging the failure or partial success makes sense.
>>
>> I can understand the argument against adding a new warning for this.
>> You could even argue that this condition has existed since the time
>> hugetlb was added to the kernel which was long ago. And, nobody has
>> complained enough to add a warning. I have even heard of a sysadmin
>> practice of asking for a ridiculously large amount of hugetlb pages
>> just so that the kernel will allocate as many as possible. They do
>> not 'expect' to get the ridiculous amount they asked for. In such
>> cases, this will be a new warning in their log.
>>
>> As mentioned in a previous e-mail, when one sets nr_hugepages by writing
>> to the sysfs or proc file, one needs to read the file to determine if the
>> number of requested pages were actually allocated. Anyone who does not
>> do this is just asking for trouble. Yet, I imagine that it may happen.
>>
>> To be honest, I do not see this log message as something that would be
>> helpful to end users. Rather, I could see this as being useful to support
>> people. Support always asks for system logs and this could point out a
>> possible issue with hugetlb usage.
>>
>> I do not feel strongly one way or another about adding the warning. Since
>> it is fairly trivial and could help diagnose issues I am in favor of adding
>> it. If people feel strongly that it should not be added, I am open to
>> those arguments.
>
> Ping!
>
> It's been a while, seems no objection to log the message. Do you
> consider accepting this patch or offering an Ack?
>
> Thanks
> Baoquan

Adding Michal as he has had opinions about hugetlbfs log messages in the past.

--
Mike Kravetz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-11 05:36    [W:0.138 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site