On Fri 23-11-18 13:30:57, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:15:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:04, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into > > > callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier > > > implementation might fail when it's not allowed to. > > > > What does WARN give you more than the existing pr_info? Is really > > backtrace that interesting? > > Automated tools have to ignore everything at info level (there's too much > of that). I guess I could do something like > > if (blockable) > pr_warn(...) > else > pr_info(...) > > WARN() is simply my goto tool for getting something at warning level > dumped into dmesg. But I think the pr_warn with the callback function > should be enough indeed. I wouldn't mind s@pr_info@pr_warn@ > If you wonder where all the info level stuff happens that we have to > ignore: suspend/resume is a primary culprit (fairly important for > gfx/desktops), but there's a bunch of other places. Even if we ignore > everything at info and below we still need filters because some drivers > are a bit too trigger-happy (i915 definitely included I guess, so everyone > contributes to this problem). Thanks for the clarification. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
