Re: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: add tracepoints for oom reaper-related events
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Fri Jun 02 2017 - 04:13:50 EST
On Thu 01-06-17 19:41:13, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 06:39:29PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 30-05-17 19:52:31, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > >From c57e3674efc609f8364f5e228a2c1309cfe99901 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> > > Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 17:37:55 +0100
> > > Subject: [PATCH v2] mm,oom: add tracepoints for oom reaper-related events
> > >
> > > During the debugging of the problem described in
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/17/542 and fixed by Tetsuo Handa
> > > in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/19/383 , I've found that
> > > the existing debug output is not really useful to understand
> > > issues related to the oom reaper.
> > >
> > > So, I assume, that adding some tracepoints might help with
> > > debugging of similar issues.
> > >
> > > Trace the following events:
> > > 1) a process is marked as an oom victim,
> > > 2) a process is added to the oom reaper list,
> > > 3) the oom reaper starts reaping process's mm,
> > > 4) the oom reaper finished reaping,
> > > 5) the oom reaper skips reaping.
> > >
> > > How it works in practice? Below is an example which show
> > > how the problem mentioned above can be found: one process is added
> > > twice to the oom_reaper list:
> > >
> > > $ cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing
> > > $ echo "oom:mark_victim" > set_event
> > > $ echo "oom:wake_reaper" >> set_event
> > > $ echo "oom:skip_task_reaping" >> set_event
> > > $ echo "oom:start_task_reaping" >> set_event
> > > $ echo "oom:finish_task_reaping" >> set_event
> > > $ cat trace_pipe
> > > allocate-502 [001] .... 91.836405: mark_victim: pid=502
> > > allocate-502 [001] .N.. 91.837356: wake_reaper: pid=502
> > > allocate-502 [000] .N.. 91.871149: wake_reaper: pid=502
> > > oom_reaper-23 [000] .... 91.871177: start_task_reaping: pid=502
> > > oom_reaper-23 [000] .N.. 91.879511: finish_task_reaping: pid=502
> > > oom_reaper-23 [000] .... 91.879580: skip_task_reaping: pid=502
> >
> > OK, this is much better! The clue here would be that we got 2
> > wakeups for the same task, right?
> > Do you think it would make sense to put more context to those
> > tracepoints? E.g. skip_task_reaping can be due to lock contention or the
> > mm gone. wake_reaper is similar.
>
> I agree, that some context might be useful under some circumstances,
> but I don't think we should add any additional fields until we will have some examples
> of where this data is actually useful. If we will need it, we can easily add it later.
OK, fair enough.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs