[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:56:55 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: don't putback unisolated page
On 09.09.21 00:42, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/7/21 2:56 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> ...
>>> If this can be handled gracefully, then I'd rather go with VM_WARN_ON.
>>> Maybe even WARN_ON_ONCE?
>>>
>>
>> I think either VM_BUG_ON() or VM_WARN_ON() -- compiling the runtime checks out -- should be good
>> enough.
>>
>> I'd just go with VM_BUG_ON(), because anybody messing with __isolate_free_page() should clearly spot
>> that we expect the current handling. But no strong opinion.
>>
>
> If in doubt, WARN*() should be preferred over BUG*(). There's a pretty long
> history of "don't kill the machine unless you have to" emails about this, let
> me dig up one...OK, maybe not the best example, but the tip of the iceberg:
Please note the subtle difference between BUG_ON and VM_BUG_ON. We
expect VM_BUG_ON to be compiled out on any production system. So it's
really only a mean to identify things that really shouldn't be like that
during debugging/testing.
Using WARN... instead of VM_BUG_ON is even worse for production systems.
There are distros that set panic_on_warn, essentially converting WARN...
into BUG...
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists