On Mon 12-12-16 12:49:03, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 2016-12-12 10:07:03, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Sat 10-12-16 20:24:57, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > > > The introduction of uncontrolled > > > > > > warn_alloc(gfp_mask, "page allocation stalls for %ums, order:%u", ...); > > I am just curious that there would be so many messages. > If I get it correctly, this warning is printed > once every 10 second. Or am I wrong? Yes it is once per 10s per allocation context. Tetsuo's test case is generating hundreds of such allocation paths which are hitting the warn_alloc path. So they can meet there and generate a lot of output. Now we have __ratelimit here which should help but most probably needs some better tunning. I am also considering to use a per warn_alloc lock which would also help to make the output nicer (not interleaving for parallel callers). > Well, you might want to consider using > > stall_timeout *= 2; > > instead of adding the constant 10 * HZ. This wouldn't help in the above situation. -- 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>