On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:14:59 -0800 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:12:52AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, Steven. > > > > So, everything else on your message, sure. You do what you have to > > do, but I really don't understand the following part, and this has > > been the main source of frustration in the whole discussion. > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 01:05:17PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > You on the other hand are showing unrealistic scenarios, and crying > > > that it's what you see in production, with no proof of it. > > > > I've explained the same scenario multiple times. Unless you're > > assuming that I'm lying, it should be amply clear that the scenario is > > unrealistic - we've been seeing them taking place repeatedly for quite > > a while. > > Oops, I meant to write "not unrealistic". Anyways, if you think I'm > lying, please let me know. I can ask others who have been seeing the > issue to join the thread. I don't believe you are lying. I believe you are interpreting one problem as another. I don't see this is a printk bug, I see it as a recursive OOM + net console bug. My patch is not trying to solve that, and I don't believe it should be solved via printk. I'm trying to solve the problem of printk spamming all CPUs causing a single CPU to lock up. That is a real bug that has been hit in various different scenarios, where there is no other underlying bug. This issue is a printk problem, and my solution solves it for printk. -- Steve -- 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>
