Re: [PATCH v1] kernel/trace:check the val against the available mem

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:38:52 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > @@ -1164,6 +1164,11 @@ static int __rb_allocate_pages(long nr_pages, struct list_head *pages, int cpu)
> >         struct buffer_page *bpage, *tmp;
> >         long i;
> >
> > +       /* Check if the available memory is there first */
> > +       i = si_mem_available();
> > +       if (i < nr_pages)  
> 
> Does it make sense to add a small margin here so that after ftrace
> finishes allocating, we still have some memory left for the system?
> But then then we have to define a magic number :-|

I don't think so. The memory is allocated by user defined numbers. They
can do "free" to see what is available. The original patch from
Zhaoyang was due to a script that would just try a very large number
and cause issues.

If the memory is available, I just say let them have it. This is
borderline user space issue and not a kernel one.

> > +  
> 
> I tested in Qemu with 1GB memory, I am always able to get it to fail
> allocation even without this patch without causing an OOM. Maybe I am
> not running enough allocations in parallel or something :)

Try just echoing in "1000000" into buffer_size_kb and see what happens.

> 
> The patch you shared using si_mem_available is working since I'm able
> to allocate till the end without a page allocation failure:
> 
> bash-4.3# echo 237800 > /d/tracing/buffer_size_kb
> bash: echo: write error: Cannot allocate memory
> bash-4.3# echo 237700 > /d/tracing/buffer_size_kb
> bash-4.3# free -m
>              total         used         free       shared      buffers
> Mem:           985          977            7           10            0
> -/+ buffers:                977            7
> Swap:            0            0            0
> bash-4.3#
> 
> I think this patch is still good to have, since IMO we should not go
> and get page allocation failure (even if its a non-OOM) and subsequent
> stack dump from mm's allocator, if we can avoid it.
> 
> Tested-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx>

Great thanks! I'll make it into a formal patch.

-- Steve