On Wed 19-10-16 20:27:53, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > What I'm talking about is "why don't you stop playing whack-a-mole games > with missing warn_alloc() calls". I don't blame you for not having a good > idea, but I blame you for not having a reliable warn_alloc() mechanism. Look, it seems pretty clear that our priorities and viewes are quite different. While I believe that we should solve real issues in a reliable and robust way you seem to love to be have as much reporting as possible. I do agree that reporting is important part of debugging of problems but as your previous attempts for the allocation watchdog show a proper and bullet proof reporting requires state tracking and is in general too complex for something that doesn't happen in most properly configured systems. Maybe there are other ways but my time is better spent on something more useful - like making the direct reclaim path more deterministic without any unbound loops. So let's agree to disagree about importance of the reliability warn_alloc. I see it as an improvement which doesn't really have to be perfect. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>