On Wed 18-04-18 16:41:17, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:20:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 18-04-18 11:29:12, Minchan Kim wrote: [...] > > > Let's not make user scared. > > > > This is not a proper explanation. So what exactly happens when this > > allocation fails? I would suggest something like the following > > " > > __memcg_schedule_kmem_cache_create tries to create a shadow slab cache > > and the worker allocation failure is not really critical because we will > > retry on the next kmem charge. We might miss some charges but that > > shouldn't be critical. The excessive allocation failure report is not > > very much helpful. Replace it with a rate limited single line output so > > that we know that there is a lot of these failures and that we need to > > do something about it in future. > > " > > > > With the last part to be implemented of course. > > If you want to see warning and catch on it in future, I don't see any reason > to change it. Because I didn't see any excessive warning output that it could > make system slow unless we did ratelimiting. Yeah, but a single line would be as much informative and less scary to users. > It was a just report from non-MM guys who have a concern that somethings > might go wrong on the system. I just wanted them relax since it's not > critical. I do agree with __GFP_NOWARN but I think a single line warning is due and helpful for further debugging. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
