On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:14:10 +0800 Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2017-09-27 10:54 GMT+08:00 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:38:21 +0800 Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> > And existing scripts which do not do this will cease to work correctly,
> >> > no?
> >> >
> >>
> >> The existing scritpts won't work correctly. That's also what I have
> >> worried before.
> >>
> >> But under this condition, there's a error message generated by "sysctl
> >> -w" to tell them the first setting was failure.
> >> This error message may be a reminder to them that there are some
> >> connections between background and direct limit, and should not set
> >> arbitrary.
> >> May that's better. I'm not sure.
> >
> > Maybe we can leave the logic as-is and simply print a warning when an
> > illogical state exists.
> >
>
> You mean, just modified the code as bellow ?
> in function domain_dirty_limits()
> - if (bg_thresh >= thresh)
> + if (bg_thresh >= thresh) {
> + pr_warn("vm direct limit should greater than background limit.\n");
> bg_thresh = thresh / 2;
> + }
Something like that.
> will this generate lots of log ?
Well, it's one message per write to a procfs file, when that write
causes an errant state. Sounds manageable? It would be nice if we
could somehow help the operator to figure out that writing in a
different order will prevent the incorrect state (and hence the
warning).
--
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>
