[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180414023516.GA17806@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:35:16 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Ratelimit messages printed by console drivers
On (04/13/18 10:12), Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > The interval is set to one hour. It is rather arbitrary selected time.
> > It is supposed to be a compromise between never print these messages,
> > do not lockup the machine, do not fill the entire buffer too quickly,
> > and get information if something changes over time.
>
>
> I think an hour is incredibly long. We only allow 100 lines per hour for
> printks happening inside another printk?
>
> I think 5 minutes (at most) would probably be plenty. One minute may be
> good enough.
Besides 100 lines is absolutely not enough for any real lockdep splat.
My call would be - up to 1000 lines in a 1 minute interval.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists