[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whvkRTVBhAamt0kYyp925jk_+g7T0CyPke_FbCWGQ1VvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:36:51 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Justin Forbes <jforbes@...oraproject.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...hwell.id.au>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@...gle.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
Jan Alexander Steffens <heftig@...hlinux.org>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Steven Barrett <steven@...uorix.net>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Daniel Byrne <djbyrne@....edu>,
Donald Carr <d@...os-reins.com>,
Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@...dex.ru>,
Shuang Zhai <szhai2@...rochester.edu>,
Sofia Trinh <sofia.trinh@....works>,
Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 08/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: support page table walks
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 2:32 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> We could create a new MM-developer-only assertion. Might even call it
> MM_BUG_ON(). With compile-time enablement but perhaps not a runtime
> switch.
.. or VM_BUG_ON() could just become a WARN_ON_ONCE().
Which it should be anyway - since the code has to be written to
continue after that BUG_ON() anyway.
There is absolutely _zero_ advantage to killing the machine. If you
want to be notified about "this must not happen", then WARN_ON_ONCE()
is the right thing to use.
BUG_ON() is basically always the wrong thing to do.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists