On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Great. >> 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? If in practice we are not hitting the limit the point is moot, and when we do I agree we can re-evaluate. With my stress test driver on a test case we can push as hard as bringing out the OOM killer even if we throttle, fun. Luis -- 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
