linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-rc4 rcupreempt.h WARNINGs while suspend/resume

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a8e1da0803062343j1e9cf911q6c1e75b4cc4736dc@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:43:53 +0800
From:	"Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	"Jike Song" <albcamus@...il.com>,
	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc4 rcupreempt.h WARNINGs while suspend/resume

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>
>
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>  >
>  > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:35:26PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>  >  > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>  >  > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>  >  > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:07:48AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>  >  > >  > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>  >  > >  > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>  >  > >  > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:08:55PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>  >  > >
>  >  > > > >  > My syslog became a 2G size big file yestoday due to the warnings.
>  >  > >  > >  > How about change the WARN_ON to WARN_ON_ONCE?
>  >  > >  > >
>  >  > >  > >  Hello, Dave,
>  >  > >  > >
>  >  > >  > >  I might be convinced to make this change for 2.6.26, but the condition
>  >  > >  > >  that the WARN_ON() is complaining about is quite serious, so I don't
>  >  > >  > >  want to take a chance on it getting lost in the noise in the 2.6.25
>  >  > >  > >  series.
>  >  > >  > >
>  >  > >  > >  Seem reasonable?
>  >  > >  >
>  >  > >  > IMHO, WARN_ON_ONCE is enough for my eyes :)
>  >  > >
>  >  > >  I could believe that, but my experience has been that many others
>  >  > >  need the condition to be obvious...
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > >  > >  Better yet, is there some sort of time-limited WARN_ON that kicks out
>  >  > >  > >  a message at most once per second or some such?  Enough to definitely
>  >  > >  > >  be noticed, but not enough to bring the machine to its knees?
>  >  > >  >
>  >  > >  > Seems there's no such functions/macros, but is is really needed?
>  >  > >
>  >  > >  If everyone reports errors when they see isolated WARN_ON()s in their
>  >  > >  logfiles, then no.  But...
>  >  >
>  >  > Ok, I agree with you.
>  >  >
>  >  > Maybe something like WARN_ON_HZ(condition) or
>  >  > WARN_ON_PERIOD(condition, period_value)?
>  >
>  >  Makes sense to me!  The other benefit of this sort of thing is that
>  >  it lets you know whether the problem was a one-off or whether it
>  >  continued happening -- but without too much log bloat.
>  >
>  >  I was thinking in terms of once every ten seconds, but am not all
>  >  that hung up on the exact value of the period.
>  >
>  >  Thoughts?
>
>  Then, WARN_ON_SECS(condition, seconds) ?

Sorry, seconds must be a fixed number here, so your 10 secs maybe
suitable for it.

>
>  >
>  >                                                 Thanx, Paul
>  >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/