On Fri 15-09-17 21:09:29, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > 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. Stop this nonsense already! Any kernel bug/lockup needs a debugging which might be non-trivial and it is necessary to understand the real culprit. We do not add random hacks to silence a problem. We aim at fixing it! > > 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. so does try_lock approach... -- 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>
