On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:06:03PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Dmitry Torokhov > > > There is > > > no slippery slope for systems to move away, no need to backport > > > anything. We seem to agree that a better solution is possible (throttle > > > number of concurrently running modprobes without killing requesters), > > > and with that solution the band-aid will no longer be needed. > > > > > > So please implement and post the proper fix for the issue. > > > > Alright, will do away with this patch and just go for the jugular of the issue. > > I gave this some more thought, even if we go with the throttling right away in > practice you'll end up with a dmesg notice of a throttle kicking in once you *do* So remove it. The warning was meaningful when we rejected requests, now it is not. > reach this. We are forcing only 50 concurrent threads and making this a static > limit with no good reason than 2.3.38 days evaluation from 16 years ago (2000). > If we throttle we are going to throttle with a 2.3.38 days limit. And you > advocate that ? Yes. Can you give me reason why slamming the system with more than 50 modprobes is a good idea in 4.12 days? Does the increased limit decreases boot time? By how much? -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
