Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread.

From	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread.
Date	2017-03-13 14:50 +0100
Message-ID	<tkywi-1es-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tjqhu-2KE-51@gated-at.bofh.it> <tjqUa-3fF-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tjuEq-5UC-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tjEkq-3VF-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tkuM2-717-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 11-03-17 10:46:58, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > In most cases, administrators can't capture even SysRq-t; let alone vmcore.
> > Therefore, automatic watchdog is highly appreciated. Have you considered this aspect?
> 
> yes I have. I tend to work with our SUSE L3 and enterprise customer a
> lot last 10 years. And what I claim is that adding more watchdog doesn't
> necessarily mean we will get better bug reports. I do not have any exact
> statistics but my perception is that allocation lockups tends to be less
> than 1% of reported bugs. You seem to make a huge issue from this
> particular class of issues basing your argumentation on "unknown
> issues which might have been allocation lockups etc." I am not feeling
> comfortable with this kind of arguing and making any decision on them.

Allocation lockups might be less than 1% of _reported_ bugs.
What I'm talking about is that there will be _unreported_ (and therefore
unrecognized/unsolved) bugs caused by memory allocation behavior.
You are refusing to make an attempt to prove/verify/handle it.

> 
> So let me repeat (for the last time). I find your watchdog interesting
> for stress testing but I am not convinced this is generally useful for
> real workloads and the maintenance burden is worth it. I _might_ be
> wrong here and that is why this is _no_ a NAK from me but I feel
> uncomfortable how hard you are pushing this.

If you worry about false positives and/or side effects of watchdog, you can
disable it in your distribution (i.e. SUSE). There are developers/users/customers
who will be helped by it.

> 
> I expect this is my last word on this.

After all, there is no real objection. Andrew, what do you think?

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-03-09 12:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-09 23:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-10 11:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-03-10 12:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> - 2017-03-10 15:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-10 16:30 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-03-11 02:50 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-13 10:50 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v7] mm: Add memory allocation watchdog kernel thread. Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-03-13 14:50 +0100

csiph-web