On Wed 15-11-17 14:43:14, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 03:28:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 15-11-17 14:13:29, Mel Gorman wrote: > > [...] > > > I doubt anyone well. Even the original reporter appeared to pick that > > > particular value just to trigger the OOM. > > > > Then why do we care at all? The trace buffer size can be configured from > > the userspace if it is not sufficiently large IIRC. > > > > I guess there is the potential that the trace buffer needs to be large > enough early on in boot but I'm not sure why it would need to be that large > to be honest. Bottom line, it's fairly trivial to just serialise meminit > in the event that it's resized from command line. I'm also ok with just > leaving this is as a "don't set the buffer that large" I would be reluctant to touch the code just because of insane kernel command line option. That being said, I will not object or block the patch it just seems unnecessary for most reasonable setups I can think of. If there is a legitimate usage of such a large trace buffer then I wouldn't oppose. -- 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>
