[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whneDk3Jde3J+O-fD32VjaK+fDf9+P6jgDtr2qyo0iu2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:03:28 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 3:58 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> BUG_ONs are harmful but problems that trigger them would be
> presummingly less penetrating to the user base; on the other hand,
> from my experience working with some testers (ordinary users), they
> ignore WARN_ON_ONCEs until the kernel crashes.
I don't understand your argument.
First you say that VM_BUG_ON() is only for VM developers.
Then you say "some testers (ordinary users) ignore WARN_ON_ONCEs until
the kernel crashes".
So which is it?
VM developers, or ordinary users?
Honestly, if a VM developer is ignoring a WARN_ON_ONCE() from the VM
subsystem, I don't even know what to say.
And for ordinary users, a WARN_ON_ONCE() is about a million times
better, becasue:
- the machine will hopefully continue working, so they can report the warning
- even when they don't notice them, distros tend to have automated
reporting infrastructure
That's why I absolutely *DETEST* those stupid BUG_ON() cases - they
will often kill the machine with nasty locks held, resulting in a
completely undebuggable thing that never gets reported.
Yes, you can be careful and only put BUG_ON() in places where recovery
is possible. But even then, they have no actual _advantages_ over just
a WARN_ON_ONCE.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists