| Message ID | 20220419203202.2670193-4-kent.overstreet@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Printbufs & shrinker OOM reporting | expand |
On Tue 19-04-22 16:32:01, Kent Overstreet wrote: > This patch: > - Moves lib/show_mem.c to mm/show_mem.c Sure, why not. Should be a separate patch. > - Changes show_mem() to always report on slab usage > - Instead of reporting on all slabs, we only report on top 10 slabs, > and in sorted order > - Also reports on shrinkers, with the new shrinkers_to_text(). Why do we need/want this? It would be also great to provide an example of why the new output is better (in which cases) than the existing one.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 08:58:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 19-04-22 16:32:01, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > This patch: > > - Moves lib/show_mem.c to mm/show_mem.c > > Sure, why not. Should be a separate patch. > > > - Changes show_mem() to always report on slab usage > > - Instead of reporting on all slabs, we only report on top 10 slabs, > > and in sorted order > > - Also reports on shrinkers, with the new shrinkers_to_text(). > > Why do we need/want this? It would be also great to provide an example > of why the new output is better (in which cases) than the existing one. Did you read the cover letter to the patch series? But sure, I can give you an example of the new output: 00177 018: page allocation failure: order:5, mode:0x40dc0(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO), nodemask=(null) 00177 CPU: 0 PID: 32171 Comm: 018 Not tainted 5.17.0-01346-g09b56740d418-dirty #154 00177 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 00177 Call Trace: 00177 <TASK> 00177 dump_stack_lvl+0x38/0x49 00177 dump_stack+0x10/0x12 00177 warn_alloc+0x128/0x150 00177 ? __alloc_pages_direct_compact+0x171/0x1f0 00177 __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.0+0xac6/0xc30 00177 ? make_kgid+0x17/0x20 00177 ? p9pdu_readf+0x28c/0xb00 00177 __alloc_pages+0x215/0x230 00177 kmalloc_order+0x30/0x80 00177 kmalloc_order_trace+0x1d/0x80 00177 __kmalloc+0x1a2/0x1d0 00177 v9fs_alloc_rdir_buf.isra.0+0x28/0x40 00177 v9fs_dir_readdir_dotl+0x55/0x160 00177 ? __alloc_pages+0x151/0x230 00177 ? lru_cache_add+0x1c/0x20 00177 ? lru_cache_add_inactive_or_unevictable+0x27/0x80 00177 ? __handle_mm_fault+0x666/0xae0 00177 iterate_dir+0x151/0x1b0 00177 __x64_sys_getdents64+0x80/0x120 00177 ? compat_fillonedir+0x160/0x160 00177 do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80 00177 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae 00177 RIP: 0033:0x7f0b15e2f9c7 00177 Code: 00 00 0f 05 eb b3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 00 48 81 fa ff ff ff 7f b8 ff ff ff 7f 48 0f 47 d0 b8 d9 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 01 c3 48 8b 15 79 b4 10 00 f7 d8 64 89 02 48 00177 RSP: 002b:00007ffcf9445b88 EFLAGS: 00000293 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000d9 00177 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000056137dd23ba0 RCX: 00007f0b15e2f9c7 00177 RDX: 000000000001f000 RSI: 000056137dd23bd0 RDI: 0000000000000003 00177 RBP: 000056137dd23bd0 R08: 0000000000000030 R09: 00007f0b15f3bc00 00177 R10: fffffffffffff776 R11: 0000000000000293 R12: ffffffffffffff88 00177 R13: 000056137dd23ba4 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000056137dd23ba0 00177 </TASK> 00177 Mem-Info: 00177 active_anon:13706 inactive_anon:32266 isolated_anon:16 00177 active_file:1653 inactive_file:1822 isolated_file:0 00177 unevictable:0 dirty:0 writeback:0 00177 slab_reclaimable:6242 slab_unreclaimable:11168 00177 mapped:3824 shmem:3 pagetables:1266 bounce:0 00177 kernel_misc_reclaimable:0 00177 free:4362 free_pcp:35 free_cma:0 00177 Node 0 active_anon:54824kB inactive_anon:129064kB active_file:6612kB inactive_file:7288kB unevictable:0kB isolated(anon):64kB isolated(file):0kB mapped:15296kB dirty:0kB writeback:0kB shmem:12kB writeback_tmp:0kB kernel_stack:3392kB pagetables:5064kB all_unreclaimable? no 00177 DMA free:2232kB boost:0kB min:88kB low:108kB high:128kB reserved_highatomic:0KB active_anon:2924kB inactive_anon:6596kB active_file:428kB inactive_file:384kB unevictable:0kB writepending:0kB present:15992kB managed:15360kB mlocked:0kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:0kB local_pcp:0kB free_cma:0kB 00177 lowmem_reserve[]: 0 426 426 426 00177 DMA32 free:15092kB boost:5836kB min:8432kB low:9080kB high:9728kB reserved_highatomic:0KB active_anon:52196kB inactive_anon:122392kB active_file:6176kB inactive_file:7068kB unevictable:0kB writepending:0kB present:507760kB managed:441816kB mlocked:0kB bounce:0kB free_pcp:72kB local_pcp:0kB free_cma:0kB 00177 lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0 00177 DMA: 284*4kB (UM) 53*8kB (UM) 21*16kB (U) 11*32kB (U) 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 2248kB 00177 DMA32: 2765*4kB (UME) 375*8kB (UME) 57*16kB (UM) 5*32kB (U) 0*64kB 0*128kB 0*256kB 0*512kB 0*1024kB 0*2048kB 0*4096kB = 15132kB 00177 4656 total pagecache pages 00177 1031 pages in swap cache 00177 Swap cache stats: add 6572399, delete 6572173, find 488603/3286476 00177 Free swap = 509112kB 00177 Total swap = 2097148kB 00177 130938 pages RAM 00177 0 pages HighMem/MovableOnly 00177 16644 pages reserved 00177 Unreclaimable slab info: 00177 9p-fcall-cache total: 8.25 MiB active: 8.25 MiB 00177 kernfs_node_cache total: 2.15 MiB active: 2.15 MiB 00177 kmalloc-64 total: 2.08 MiB active: 2.07 MiB 00177 task_struct total: 1.95 MiB active: 1.95 MiB 00177 kmalloc-4k total: 1.50 MiB active: 1.50 MiB 00177 signal_cache total: 1.34 MiB active: 1.34 MiB 00177 kmalloc-2k total: 1.16 MiB active: 1.16 MiB 00177 bch_inode_info total: 1.02 MiB active: 922 KiB 00177 perf_event total: 1.02 MiB active: 1.02 MiB 00177 biovec-max total: 992 KiB active: 960 KiB 00177 Shrinkers: 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 127 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 106 00177 jbd2_journal_shrink_scan: objects: 32 00177 ext4_es_scan: objects: 32 00177 bch2_btree_cache_scan: objects: 8 00177 nr nodes: 24 00177 nr dirty: 0 00177 cannibalize lock: 0000000000000000 00177 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 8 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 1
On Wed 20-04-22 12:58:05, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 08:58:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 19-04-22 16:32:01, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > This patch: > > > - Moves lib/show_mem.c to mm/show_mem.c > > > > Sure, why not. Should be a separate patch. > > > > > - Changes show_mem() to always report on slab usage > > > - Instead of reporting on all slabs, we only report on top 10 slabs, > > > and in sorted order > > > - Also reports on shrinkers, with the new shrinkers_to_text(). > > > > Why do we need/want this? It would be also great to provide an example > > of why the new output is better (in which cases) than the existing one. > > Did you read the cover letter to the patch series? Nope, only this one made it into my inbox based on my filters. I usually try to fish out other parts of the thread but I didn't this time. Besides it is always better to have a full patch description explain not only what has been changed but why as well. > But sure, I can give you an example of the new output: Calling out the changes would be really helpful, but I guess the crux is here. > 00177 16644 pages reserved > 00177 Unreclaimable slab info: > 00177 9p-fcall-cache total: 8.25 MiB active: 8.25 MiB > 00177 kernfs_node_cache total: 2.15 MiB active: 2.15 MiB > 00177 kmalloc-64 total: 2.08 MiB active: 2.07 MiB > 00177 task_struct total: 1.95 MiB active: 1.95 MiB > 00177 kmalloc-4k total: 1.50 MiB active: 1.50 MiB > 00177 signal_cache total: 1.34 MiB active: 1.34 MiB > 00177 kmalloc-2k total: 1.16 MiB active: 1.16 MiB > 00177 bch_inode_info total: 1.02 MiB active: 922 KiB > 00177 perf_event total: 1.02 MiB active: 1.02 MiB > 00177 biovec-max total: 992 KiB active: 960 KiB > 00177 Shrinkers: > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 127 > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 106 > 00177 jbd2_journal_shrink_scan: objects: 32 > 00177 ext4_es_scan: objects: 32 > 00177 bch2_btree_cache_scan: objects: 8 > 00177 nr nodes: 24 > 00177 nr dirty: 0 > 00177 cannibalize lock: 0000000000000000 > 00177 > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 8 > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 1 How does this help to analyze this allocation failure?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:18:20AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 20-04-22 12:58:05, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 08:58:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 19-04-22 16:32:01, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > > This patch: > > > > - Moves lib/show_mem.c to mm/show_mem.c > > > > > > Sure, why not. Should be a separate patch. > > > > > > > - Changes show_mem() to always report on slab usage > > > > - Instead of reporting on all slabs, we only report on top 10 slabs, > > > > and in sorted order > > > > - Also reports on shrinkers, with the new shrinkers_to_text(). > > > > > > Why do we need/want this? It would be also great to provide an example > > > of why the new output is better (in which cases) than the existing one. > > > > Did you read the cover letter to the patch series? > > Nope, only this one made it into my inbox based on my filters. I usually > try to fish out other parts of the thread but I didn't this time. > Besides it is always better to have a full patch description explain not > only what has been changed but why as well. > > > But sure, I can give you an example of the new output: > > Calling out the changes would be really helpful, but I guess the crux > is here. > > > 00177 16644 pages reserved > > 00177 Unreclaimable slab info: > > 00177 9p-fcall-cache total: 8.25 MiB active: 8.25 MiB > > 00177 kernfs_node_cache total: 2.15 MiB active: 2.15 MiB > > 00177 kmalloc-64 total: 2.08 MiB active: 2.07 MiB > > 00177 task_struct total: 1.95 MiB active: 1.95 MiB > > 00177 kmalloc-4k total: 1.50 MiB active: 1.50 MiB > > 00177 signal_cache total: 1.34 MiB active: 1.34 MiB > > 00177 kmalloc-2k total: 1.16 MiB active: 1.16 MiB > > 00177 bch_inode_info total: 1.02 MiB active: 922 KiB > > 00177 perf_event total: 1.02 MiB active: 1.02 MiB > > 00177 biovec-max total: 992 KiB active: 960 KiB > > 00177 Shrinkers: > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 127 > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 106 > > 00177 jbd2_journal_shrink_scan: objects: 32 > > 00177 ext4_es_scan: objects: 32 > > 00177 bch2_btree_cache_scan: objects: 8 > > 00177 nr nodes: 24 > > 00177 nr dirty: 0 > > 00177 cannibalize lock: 0000000000000000 > > 00177 > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 8 > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 1 > > How does this help to analyze this allocation failure? You asked for an example of the output, which was an entirely reasonable request. Shrinkers weren't responsible for this OOM, so it doesn't help here - are you asking me to explain why shrinkers are relevant to OOMs and memory reclaim...? Since shrinkers own and, critically, _are responsible for freeing memory_, a shrinker not giving up memory when asked (or perhaps not being asked to give up memory) can cause an OOM. A starting point - not an end - if we want to improve OOM debugging is at least being able to see how much memory each shrinker owns. Since we don't even have that, number of objects will have to do. The reason for adding the .to_text() callback is that shrinkers have internal state that affects whether they are able to give up objects when asked - the primary example being object dirtyness. If your system is using a ton of memory caching inodes, and something's wedged writeback, and they're nearly all dirty - you're going to have a bad day. The bcachefs btree node node shrinker included as an example of what we can do with this: internally we may have to allocate new btree nodes by reclaiming from our own cache, and we have a lock to prevent multiple threads from doing this at the same time, and this lock also blocks the shrinker from freeing more memory until we're done. In filesystem land, debugging memory reclaim issues is a rather painful topic that often comes up, this is a starting point...
On Thu 21-04-22 14:42:13, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:18:20AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > 00177 16644 pages reserved > > > 00177 Unreclaimable slab info: > > > 00177 9p-fcall-cache total: 8.25 MiB active: 8.25 MiB > > > 00177 kernfs_node_cache total: 2.15 MiB active: 2.15 MiB > > > 00177 kmalloc-64 total: 2.08 MiB active: 2.07 MiB > > > 00177 task_struct total: 1.95 MiB active: 1.95 MiB > > > 00177 kmalloc-4k total: 1.50 MiB active: 1.50 MiB > > > 00177 signal_cache total: 1.34 MiB active: 1.34 MiB > > > 00177 kmalloc-2k total: 1.16 MiB active: 1.16 MiB > > > 00177 bch_inode_info total: 1.02 MiB active: 922 KiB > > > 00177 perf_event total: 1.02 MiB active: 1.02 MiB > > > 00177 biovec-max total: 992 KiB active: 960 KiB > > > 00177 Shrinkers: > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 127 > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 106 > > > 00177 jbd2_journal_shrink_scan: objects: 32 > > > 00177 ext4_es_scan: objects: 32 > > > 00177 bch2_btree_cache_scan: objects: 8 > > > 00177 nr nodes: 24 > > > 00177 nr dirty: 0 > > > 00177 cannibalize lock: 0000000000000000 > > > 00177 > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 8 > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 1 > > > > How does this help to analyze this allocation failure? > > You asked for an example of the output, which was an entirely reasonable > request. Shrinkers weren't responsible for this OOM, so it doesn't help here - OK, do you have an example where it clearly helps? > are you asking me to explain why shrinkers are relevant to OOMs and memory > reclaim...? No, not really, I guess that is quite clear. The thing is that the oom report is quite bloated already and we should be rather picky on what to dump there. Your above example is a good one here. You have an order-5 allocation failure and that can be caused by almost anything. Compaction not making progress for many reasons - e.g. internal framentation caused by pinned pages but also kmalloc allocations. The above output doesn't help with any of that. Could shrinkers operation be related? Of course it could but how can I tell? We already dump slab data when the slab usage is excessive for the oom killer report and that was a very useful addition in many cases and it is bound to cases where slab consumption could be the primary source of the OOM condition. That being said the additional output should be at least conditional and reported when there is a chance that it could help with analysis. > Since shrinkers own and, critically, _are responsible for freeing memory_, a > shrinker not giving up memory when asked (or perhaps not being asked to give up > memory) can cause an OOM. A starting point - not an end - if we want to improve > OOM debugging is at least being able to see how much memory each shrinker owns. > Since we don't even have that, number of objects will have to do. > > The reason for adding the .to_text() callback is that shrinkers have internal > state that affects whether they are able to give up objects when asked - the > primary example being object dirtyness. > > If your system is using a ton of memory caching inodes, and something's wedged > writeback, and they're nearly all dirty - you're going to have a bad day. > > The bcachefs btree node node shrinker included as an example of what we can do > with this: internally we may have to allocate new btree nodes by reclaiming from > our own cache, and we have a lock to prevent multiple threads from doing this at > the same time, and this lock also blocks the shrinker from freeing more memory > until we're done. > > In filesystem land, debugging memory reclaim issues is a rather painful topic > that often comes up, this is a starting point... I completely understand the frustration. I've been analyzing oom reports for years and I can tell that the existing report is quite good but in many cases the information we provide is still insufficient. My experience also tells me that those cases are usually very special and a specific data dumped for them wouldn't be all that useful in the majority of cases. If we are lucky enough the oom is reproducible and additional tracepoints (or whatever your prefer to use) tell us more. Far from optimal, no question about that but I do not have a good answer on where the trashhold should really be. Maybe we can come up with some trigger based mechanism (e.g. some shrinkers are failing so they register their debugging data which will get dumped on the OOM) which would enable certain debugging information or something like that.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 10:03:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 21-04-22 14:42:13, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:18:20AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > > 00177 16644 pages reserved > > > > 00177 Unreclaimable slab info: > > > > 00177 9p-fcall-cache total: 8.25 MiB active: 8.25 MiB > > > > 00177 kernfs_node_cache total: 2.15 MiB active: 2.15 MiB > > > > 00177 kmalloc-64 total: 2.08 MiB active: 2.07 MiB > > > > 00177 task_struct total: 1.95 MiB active: 1.95 MiB > > > > 00177 kmalloc-4k total: 1.50 MiB active: 1.50 MiB > > > > 00177 signal_cache total: 1.34 MiB active: 1.34 MiB > > > > 00177 kmalloc-2k total: 1.16 MiB active: 1.16 MiB > > > > 00177 bch_inode_info total: 1.02 MiB active: 922 KiB > > > > 00177 perf_event total: 1.02 MiB active: 1.02 MiB > > > > 00177 biovec-max total: 992 KiB active: 960 KiB > > > > 00177 Shrinkers: > > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 127 > > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 106 > > > > 00177 jbd2_journal_shrink_scan: objects: 32 > > > > 00177 ext4_es_scan: objects: 32 > > > > 00177 bch2_btree_cache_scan: objects: 8 > > > > 00177 nr nodes: 24 > > > > 00177 nr dirty: 0 > > > > 00177 cannibalize lock: 0000000000000000 > > > > 00177 > > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 8 > > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 1 > > > > > > How does this help to analyze this allocation failure? > > > > You asked for an example of the output, which was an entirely reasonable > > request. Shrinkers weren't responsible for this OOM, so it doesn't help here - > > OK, do you have an example where it clearly helps? I've debugged quite a few issues with shrinkers over the years where this would have helped a lot (especially if it was also in sysfs), although nothing currently. I was just talking with Dave earlier tonight about more things that could be added for shrinkers, but I'm going to have to go over that conversation again and take notes. Also, I feel I have to point out that OOM & memory reclaim debugging is an area where many filesystem developers feel that the MM people have been dropping the ball, and your initial response to this patch series... well, it feels like more of the same. Still does to be honest, you're coming across like I haven't been working in this area for a decade+ and don't know what I'm touching. Really, I'm not new to this stuff. > > are you asking me to explain why shrinkers are relevant to OOMs and memory > > reclaim...? > > No, not really, I guess that is quite clear. The thing is that the oom > report is quite bloated already and we should be rather picky on what to > dump there. Your above example is a good one here. You have an order-5 > allocation failure and that can be caused by almost anything. Compaction > not making progress for many reasons - e.g. internal framentation caused > by pinned pages but also kmalloc allocations. The above output doesn't > help with any of that. Could shrinkers operation be related? Of course > it could but how can I tell? Yeah sure and internal fragmentation would actually be an _excellent_ thing to add to the show_mem report. > We already dump slab data when the slab usage is excessive for the oom > killer report and that was a very useful addition in many cases and it > is bound to cases where slab consumption could be the primary source of > the OOM condition. > > That being said the additional output should be at least conditional and > reported when there is a chance that it could help with analysis. These things don't need to be conditional if we're more carefully selective about how we report, instead of just dumping everything like we currently do with slab info. We don't need to report on all the slabs that are barely used - if you'll read my patch and example output, which changes it to the top 10 slabs by memory usage. I feel like I keep repeating myself here. It would help if you would make more of an effort to follow the full patch series and descriptions before commenting generically. > > Since shrinkers own and, critically, _are responsible for freeing memory_, a > > shrinker not giving up memory when asked (or perhaps not being asked to give up > > memory) can cause an OOM. A starting point - not an end - if we want to improve > > OOM debugging is at least being able to see how much memory each shrinker owns. > > Since we don't even have that, number of objects will have to do. > > > > The reason for adding the .to_text() callback is that shrinkers have internal > > state that affects whether they are able to give up objects when asked - the > > primary example being object dirtyness. > > > > If your system is using a ton of memory caching inodes, and something's wedged > > writeback, and they're nearly all dirty - you're going to have a bad day. > > > > The bcachefs btree node node shrinker included as an example of what we can do > > with this: internally we may have to allocate new btree nodes by reclaiming from > > our own cache, and we have a lock to prevent multiple threads from doing this at > > the same time, and this lock also blocks the shrinker from freeing more memory > > until we're done. > > > > In filesystem land, debugging memory reclaim issues is a rather painful topic > > that often comes up, this is a starting point... > > I completely understand the frustration. I've been analyzing oom reports > for years and I can tell that the existing report is quite good but > in many cases the information we provide is still insufficient. My > experience also tells me that those cases are usually very special and > a specific data dumped for them wouldn't be all that useful in the > majority of cases. > > If we are lucky enough the oom is reproducible and additional > tracepoints (or whatever your prefer to use) tell us more. Far from > optimal, no question about that but I do not have a good answer on > where the trashhold should really be. Maybe we can come up with some > trigger based mechanism (e.g. some shrinkers are failing so they > register their debugging data which will get dumped on the OOM) which > would enable certain debugging information or something like that. Why would we need a trigger mechanism? Could you explain your objection to simply unconditionally dumping the top 10 slabs and the top 10 shrinkers?
On Fri 22-04-22 04:30:37, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 10:03:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 21-04-22 14:42:13, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:18:20AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > > 00177 16644 pages reserved > > > > > 00177 Unreclaimable slab info: > > > > > 00177 9p-fcall-cache total: 8.25 MiB active: 8.25 MiB > > > > > 00177 kernfs_node_cache total: 2.15 MiB active: 2.15 MiB > > > > > 00177 kmalloc-64 total: 2.08 MiB active: 2.07 MiB > > > > > 00177 task_struct total: 1.95 MiB active: 1.95 MiB > > > > > 00177 kmalloc-4k total: 1.50 MiB active: 1.50 MiB > > > > > 00177 signal_cache total: 1.34 MiB active: 1.34 MiB > > > > > 00177 kmalloc-2k total: 1.16 MiB active: 1.16 MiB > > > > > 00177 bch_inode_info total: 1.02 MiB active: 922 KiB > > > > > 00177 perf_event total: 1.02 MiB active: 1.02 MiB > > > > > 00177 biovec-max total: 992 KiB active: 960 KiB > > > > > 00177 Shrinkers: > > > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 127 > > > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 106 > > > > > 00177 jbd2_journal_shrink_scan: objects: 32 > > > > > 00177 ext4_es_scan: objects: 32 > > > > > 00177 bch2_btree_cache_scan: objects: 8 > > > > > 00177 nr nodes: 24 > > > > > 00177 nr dirty: 0 > > > > > 00177 cannibalize lock: 0000000000000000 > > > > > 00177 > > > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 8 > > > > > 00177 super_cache_scan: objects: 1 > > > > > > > > How does this help to analyze this allocation failure? > > > > > > You asked for an example of the output, which was an entirely reasonable > > > request. Shrinkers weren't responsible for this OOM, so it doesn't help here - > > > > OK, do you have an example where it clearly helps? > > I've debugged quite a few issues with shrinkers over the years where this would > have helped a lot (especially if it was also in sysfs), although nothing > currently. I was just talking with Dave earlier tonight about more things that > could be added for shrinkers, but I'm going to have to go over that conversation > again and take notes. > > Also, I feel I have to point out that OOM & memory reclaim debugging is an area > where many filesystem developers feel that the MM people have been dropping the > ball, and your initial response to this patch series... well, it feels like > more of the same. Not sure where you get that feeling. Debugging memory reclaim is a PITA because many problems can be indirect and tools we have available are not really great. I do not remember MM people would be blocking useful debugging tools addition. > Still does to be honest, you're coming across like I haven't been working in > this area for a decade+ and don't know what I'm touching. Really, I'm not new to > this stuff. I am sorry to hear that but there certainly is no intention like that and TBH I do not even see where you get that feeling. You have posted a changelog which doesn't explain really much. I am aware that you are far from a kernel newbie and therefore I would really expect much more in that regards. > > > are you asking me to explain why shrinkers are relevant to OOMs and memory > > > reclaim...? > > > > No, not really, I guess that is quite clear. The thing is that the oom > > report is quite bloated already and we should be rather picky on what to > > dump there. Your above example is a good one here. You have an order-5 > > allocation failure and that can be caused by almost anything. Compaction > > not making progress for many reasons - e.g. internal framentation caused > > by pinned pages but also kmalloc allocations. The above output doesn't > > help with any of that. Could shrinkers operation be related? Of course > > it could but how can I tell? > > Yeah sure and internal fragmentation would actually be an _excellent_ thing to > add to the show_mem report. Completely agreed. The only information we currently have is the buddyinfo part which reports movability status but I do not think this is remotely sufficient. [...] > > If we are lucky enough the oom is reproducible and additional > > tracepoints (or whatever your prefer to use) tell us more. Far from > > optimal, no question about that but I do not have a good answer on > > where the trashhold should really be. Maybe we can come up with some > > trigger based mechanism (e.g. some shrinkers are failing so they > > register their debugging data which will get dumped on the OOM) which > > would enable certain debugging information or something like that. > > Why would we need a trigger mechanism? Mostly because reasons for reclaim failures can vary a lot and the oom report part doesn't have an idea what has happened during the reclaim/compaction. > Could you explain your objection to simply unconditionally dumping the top 10 > slabs and the top 10 shrinkers? We already do that in some form. We dump unreclaimable slabs if they consume more memory than user pages on LRUs. We also dump all slab caches with some objects. Why is this approach not good? Should we tweak the condition to dump or should we limit the dump? These are reasonable questions to ask. Your patch has dropped those without explaining any of the motivation. I am perfectly OK to modify should_dump_unreclaim_slab to dump even if the slab memory consumption is lower. Also dumping small caches with handful of objects can be excessive. Wrt to shrinkers I really do not know what kind of shrinkers data would be useful to dump and when. Therefore I am asking about examples.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:27:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > We already do that in some form. We dump unreclaimable slabs if they > consume more memory than user pages on LRUs. We also dump all slab > caches with some objects. Why is this approach not good? Should we tweak > the condition to dump or should we limit the dump? These are reasonable > questions to ask. Your patch has dropped those without explaining any > of the motivation. > > I am perfectly OK to modify should_dump_unreclaim_slab to dump even if > the slab memory consumption is lower. Also dumping small caches with > handful of objects can be excessive. > > Wrt to shrinkers I really do not know what kind of shrinkers data would > be useful to dump and when. Therefore I am asking about examples. Look, I've given you the sample output you asked for and explained repeatedly my rationale and you haven't directly responded; if you have a reason you're against the patches please say so, but please give your reasoning.
On Fri 22-04-22 05:44:13, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:27:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > We already do that in some form. We dump unreclaimable slabs if they > > consume more memory than user pages on LRUs. We also dump all slab > > caches with some objects. Why is this approach not good? Should we tweak > > the condition to dump or should we limit the dump? These are reasonable > > questions to ask. Your patch has dropped those without explaining any > > of the motivation. > > > > I am perfectly OK to modify should_dump_unreclaim_slab to dump even if > > the slab memory consumption is lower. Also dumping small caches with > > handful of objects can be excessive. > > > > Wrt to shrinkers I really do not know what kind of shrinkers data would > > be useful to dump and when. Therefore I am asking about examples. > > Look, I've given you the sample That sample is of no use as it doesn't really show how the additional information is useful to analyze the allocation failure. I thought we have agreed on that. You still haven't given any example where the information is useful. So I do not really see any reason to change the existing output. > output you asked for and explained repeatedly my > rationale and you haven't directly responded; Your rationale is that we need more data and I do agree but it is not clear which data and under which conditions. > if you have a reason you're > against the patches please say so, but please give your reasoning. I have expressed that already, I believe, but let me repeat. I do not like altering the oom report without a justification on how this new output is useful. You have failed to explained that so far.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:51:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 22-04-22 05:44:13, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:27:05AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > We already do that in some form. We dump unreclaimable slabs if they > > > consume more memory than user pages on LRUs. We also dump all slab > > > caches with some objects. Why is this approach not good? Should we tweak > > > the condition to dump or should we limit the dump? These are reasonable > > > questions to ask. Your patch has dropped those without explaining any > > > of the motivation. > > > > > > I am perfectly OK to modify should_dump_unreclaim_slab to dump even if > > > the slab memory consumption is lower. Also dumping small caches with > > > handful of objects can be excessive. > > > > > > Wrt to shrinkers I really do not know what kind of shrinkers data would > > > be useful to dump and when. Therefore I am asking about examples. > > > > Look, I've given you the sample > > That sample is of no use as it doesn't really show how the additional > information is useful to analyze the allocation failure. I thought we > have agreed on that. You still haven't given any example where the > information is useful. So I do not really see any reason to change the > existing output. > > > output you asked for and explained repeatedly my > > rationale and you haven't directly responded; > > Your rationale is that we need more data and I do agree but it is not > clear which data and under which conditions. You're completely mischaractarizing and making this _way_ more complicated than it has to be, but I'll repeat: - For the slab changes, top 10 slabs in sorted order, with human readable units are _vastly_ easier on human eyes than pages of slab output, in the previous format - Shrinkers weren't reported on before at all, and as shrinkers are part of memory reclaim they're pretty integral to OOM debugging. > > if you have a reason you're > > against the patches please say so, but please give your reasoning. > > I have expressed that already, I believe, but let me repeat. I do not > like altering the oom report without a justification on how this new > output is useful. You have failed to explained that so far. Uh huh. Sounds like someone has some scripts he doesn't want to have to update.
diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index 31a3904eda..c5041d33d0 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ endif lib-y := ctype.o string.o vsprintf.o cmdline.o \ rbtree.o radix-tree.o timerqueue.o xarray.o \ idr.o extable.o sha1.o irq_regs.o argv_split.o \ - flex_proportions.o ratelimit.o show_mem.o \ + flex_proportions.o ratelimit.o \ is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o kobject_uevent.o \ earlycpio.o seq_buf.o siphash.o dec_and_lock.o \ nmi_backtrace.o nodemask.o win_minmax.o memcat_p.o \ diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile index 70d4309c9c..97c0be12f3 100644 --- a/mm/Makefile +++ b/mm/Makefile @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ obj-y := filemap.o mempool.o oom_kill.o fadvise.o \ mm_init.o percpu.o slab_common.o \ compaction.o vmacache.o \ interval_tree.o list_lru.o workingset.o \ - debug.o gup.o mmap_lock.o $(mmu-y) + debug.o gup.o mmap_lock.o show_mem.o $(mmu-y) # Give 'page_alloc' its own module-parameter namespace page-alloc-y := page_alloc.o diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c index 832fb33037..659c7d6376 100644 --- a/mm/oom_kill.c +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c @@ -171,27 +171,6 @@ static bool oom_unkillable_task(struct task_struct *p) return false; } -/* - * Check whether unreclaimable slab amount is greater than - * all user memory(LRU pages). - * dump_unreclaimable_slab() could help in the case that - * oom due to too much unreclaimable slab used by kernel. -*/ -static bool should_dump_unreclaim_slab(void) -{ - unsigned long nr_lru; - - nr_lru = global_node_page_state(NR_ACTIVE_ANON) + - global_node_page_state(NR_INACTIVE_ANON) + - global_node_page_state(NR_ACTIVE_FILE) + - global_node_page_state(NR_INACTIVE_FILE) + - global_node_page_state(NR_ISOLATED_ANON) + - global_node_page_state(NR_ISOLATED_FILE) + - global_node_page_state(NR_UNEVICTABLE); - - return (global_node_page_state_pages(NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B) > nr_lru); -} - /** * oom_badness - heuristic function to determine which candidate task to kill * @p: task struct of which task we should calculate @@ -465,8 +444,6 @@ static void dump_header(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *p) mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo(oc->memcg); else { show_mem(SHOW_MEM_FILTER_NODES, oc->nodemask); - if (should_dump_unreclaim_slab()) - dump_unreclaimable_slab(); } if (sysctl_oom_dump_tasks) dump_tasks(oc); diff --git a/lib/show_mem.c b/mm/show_mem.c similarity index 78% rename from lib/show_mem.c rename to mm/show_mem.c index 1c26c14ffb..c9f37f13d6 100644 --- a/lib/show_mem.c +++ b/mm/show_mem.c @@ -7,11 +7,15 @@ #include <linux/mm.h> #include <linux/cma.h> +#include <linux/printbuf.h> + +#include "slab.h" void show_mem(unsigned int filter, nodemask_t *nodemask) { pg_data_t *pgdat; unsigned long total = 0, reserved = 0, highmem = 0; + struct printbuf buf = PRINTBUF; printk("Mem-Info:\n"); show_free_areas(filter, nodemask); @@ -41,4 +45,14 @@ void show_mem(unsigned int filter, nodemask_t *nodemask) #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE printk("%lu pages hwpoisoned\n", atomic_long_read(&num_poisoned_pages)); #endif + + pr_info("Unreclaimable slab info:\n"); + dump_unreclaimable_slab(&buf); + printk("%s", buf.buf); + printbuf_reset(&buf); + + printk("Shrinkers:\n"); + shrinkers_to_text(&buf); + printk("%s", buf.buf); + printbuf_exit(&buf); } diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h index c7f2abc2b1..abefbf7674 100644 --- a/mm/slab.h +++ b/mm/slab.h @@ -788,10 +788,12 @@ static inline struct kmem_cache_node *get_node(struct kmem_cache *s, int node) #endif +struct printbuf; + #if defined(CONFIG_SLAB) || defined(CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG) -void dump_unreclaimable_slab(void); +void dump_unreclaimable_slab(struct printbuf *); #else -static inline void dump_unreclaimable_slab(void) +static inline void dump_unreclaimable_slab(struct printbuf *out) { } #endif diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c index 23f2ab0713..cb1c548c73 100644 --- a/mm/slab_common.c +++ b/mm/slab_common.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include <asm/tlbflush.h> #include <asm/page.h> #include <linux/memcontrol.h> +#include <linux/printbuf.h> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS #include <trace/events/kmem.h> @@ -1084,10 +1085,15 @@ static int slab_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p) return 0; } -void dump_unreclaimable_slab(void) +void dump_unreclaimable_slab(struct printbuf *out) { struct kmem_cache *s; struct slabinfo sinfo; + struct slab_by_mem { + struct kmem_cache *s; + size_t total, active; + } slabs_by_mem[10], n; + int i, nr = 0; /* * Here acquiring slab_mutex is risky since we don't prefer to get @@ -1097,12 +1103,11 @@ void dump_unreclaimable_slab(void) * without acquiring the mutex. */ if (!mutex_trylock(&slab_mutex)) { - pr_warn("excessive unreclaimable slab but cannot dump stats\n"); + pr_buf(out, "excessive unreclaimable slab but cannot dump stats\n"); return; } - pr_info("Unreclaimable slab info:\n"); - pr_info("Name Used Total\n"); + buf->atomic++; list_for_each_entry(s, &slab_caches, list) { if (s->flags & SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT) @@ -1110,11 +1115,43 @@ void dump_unreclaimable_slab(void) get_slabinfo(s, &sinfo); - if (sinfo.num_objs > 0) - pr_info("%-17s %10luKB %10luKB\n", s->name, - (sinfo.active_objs * s->size) / 1024, - (sinfo.num_objs * s->size) / 1024); + if (!sinfo.num_objs) + continue; + + n.s = s; + n.total = sinfo.num_objs * s->size; + n.active = sinfo.active_objs * s->size; + + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) + if (n.total < slabs_by_mem[i].total) + break; + + if (nr < ARRAY_SIZE(slabs_by_mem)) { + memmove(&slabs_by_mem[i + 1], + &slabs_by_mem[i], + sizeof(slabs_by_mem[0]) * (nr - i)); + nr++; + } else if (i) { + i--; + memmove(&slabs_by_mem[0], + &slabs_by_mem[1], + sizeof(slabs_by_mem[0]) * i); + } else { + continue; + } + + slabs_by_mem[i] = n; + } + + for (i = nr - 1; i >= 0; --i) { + pr_buf(out, "%-17s total: ", slabs_by_mem[i].s->name); + pr_human_readable_u64(out, slabs_by_mem[i].total); + pr_buf(out, " active: "); + pr_human_readable_u64(out, slabs_by_mem[i].active); + pr_newline(out); } + + --buf->atomic; mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex); }
This patch: - Moves lib/show_mem.c to mm/show_mem.c - Changes show_mem() to always report on slab usage - Instead of reporting on all slabs, we only report on top 10 slabs, and in sorted order - Also reports on shrinkers, with the new shrinkers_to_text(). More OOM reporting can be moved to show_mem.c and improved, this patch is only a small start. Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> --- lib/Makefile | 2 +- mm/Makefile | 2 +- mm/oom_kill.c | 23 ------------------ {lib => mm}/show_mem.c | 14 +++++++++++ mm/slab.h | 6 +++-- mm/slab_common.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 6 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) rename {lib => mm}/show_mem.c (78%)