Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 15-09-17 20:38:49, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > [...] > > You said "identify _why_ we see the lockup trigerring in the first > > place" without providing means to identify it. Unless you provide > > means to identify it (in a form which can be immediately and easily > > backported to 4.9 kernels; that is, backporting not-yet-accepted > > printk() offloading patchset is not a choice), this patch cannot be > > refused. > > I fail to see why. It simply workarounds an existing problem elsewhere > in the kernel without deeper understanding on where the problem is. You > can add your own instrumentation to debug and describe the problem. This > is no different to any other kernel bugs... Please do show us your patch for that. Normal users cannot afford developing such instrumentation to debug and describe the problem. > > If our printk implementation is so weak it cannot cope with writers then > that should be fixed without spreading hacks in different subsystems. If > the lockup is a real problem under normal workloads (rather than > artificial ones) then we should try to throttle more aggresively. No throttle please. Throttling makes warn_alloc() more and more useless. -- 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>
