On Fri 19-07-24 12:10:13, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 7/19/24 11:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 19-07-24 10:50:07, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > [...] > >> That wouldn't mean the busy loop is a correct and supported practice. It > >> would just mean it's the least bad of the bad options we have to deal with > >> an allocation that's wrong but we didn't catch soon enough in the development. > > > > So you want to make those potential BUG_ONs hard/soft lockups (not sure > > all arches have a reliable detection) instead? > > I'd expect on a SMP machine there's fair chance of being rescued by kswapd > or other direct reclaimer. I would expect hard/soft lockups... Anyway, the question remains. What is the preferred way to express this is not really supported scenario. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
