Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sat 11-03-17 10:46:58, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > In most cases, administrators can't capture even SysRq-t; let alone vmcore. > > Therefore, automatic watchdog is highly appreciated. Have you considered this aspect? > > yes I have. I tend to work with our SUSE L3 and enterprise customer a > lot last 10 years. And what I claim is that adding more watchdog doesn't > necessarily mean we will get better bug reports. I do not have any exact > statistics but my perception is that allocation lockups tends to be less > than 1% of reported bugs. You seem to make a huge issue from this > particular class of issues basing your argumentation on "unknown > issues which might have been allocation lockups etc." I am not feeling > comfortable with this kind of arguing and making any decision on them. Allocation lockups might be less than 1% of _reported_ bugs. What I'm talking about is that there will be _unreported_ (and therefore unrecognized/unsolved) bugs caused by memory allocation behavior. You are refusing to make an attempt to prove/verify/handle it. > > So let me repeat (for the last time). I find your watchdog interesting > for stress testing but I am not convinced this is generally useful for > real workloads and the maintenance burden is worth it. I _might_ be > wrong here and that is why this is _no_ a NAK from me but I feel > uncomfortable how hard you are pushing this. If you worry about false positives and/or side effects of watchdog, you can disable it in your distribution (i.e. SUSE). There are developers/users/customers who will be helped by it. > > I expect this is my last word on this. After all, there is no real objection. Andrew, what do you think? -- 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>
