[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJmaN==58aOME8m7GmtOxiRfD2qz8aFjJucC_0MYLhk-7GDqvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:37:17 -0700
From: Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
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>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 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: [page-reclaim] Re: [PATCH v10 08/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: support
page table walks
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022, 4:31 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:24:14PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 4:04 PM Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Generally agreed, and not to belabor this relatively small issue, but in some
> > environments like cloud or managed client deployments, a crash can actually
> > be preferable so we can get a dump, reboot the machine, and get things going
> > again for the application or user, then debug offline. So having the
> > flexibility to
> > do that in those situations is helpful. And there, a full crash dump is better
> > than just a log report with the WARN info, since debugging may be easier with
> > all the kernel memory.
>
> But for those situations, don't you set panic_on_warn anyway?
Yes ignore me.
Jesse "returning to his cave of ignorace" Barnes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists