Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: be more verbose for alloc_contig_range faliures | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Date | Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:30:12 +0100 |
| |
On 19.02.21 10:28, 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 > infrastructure for this.
Just so I understand what you are referring to - trace points?
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |