On 08/20/2014 01:11 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > In any case I don't think it's a good idea to abuse existing > facilities just to gain attention: you'll get the extra > attention, but the abuse dilutes the utility of those only > tangentially related facilities. I'm happy to rip the TAINT parts out. I was just hoping that some tooling might pick up the taint flags today, and this could get picked up without modification of whatever those tools are. I was _really_ hoping the dmesg from the taint would be ugly and loud enough to be sufficient, but it was relatively terse. > A better option might be to declare known performance killers > in /proc/config_debug or so, and maybe print them once at the > end of the bootup, with a 'WARNING:' or 'INFO:' prefix. That > way tooling (benchmarks, profilers, etc.) can print them, but > it's also present in the syslog, just in case. Sounds reasonable to me. As long as we have _something_ that shows up in dmesg, it will help. -- 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>