[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804031657.43895.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:57:43 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: GFP_ATOMIC page allocation failures.
On Thursday 03 April 2008 05:18, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Turning to Nick's comment,
>
> > It's still actually nice to know how often it is happening even for
> > these known good sites because too much can indicate a problem and
> > that you could actually bring performance up by tuning some things.
>
> then create a counter or acculuation buffer somewhere.
>
> We don't need spew every time there is memory pressure of this magnitude.
Not a complete solution. Counter would be nice, but you need backtraces
and want a way to more proactively warn the user/tester/developer.
I agree that I don't exactly like adding nowarns around, and I don't think
places like driver writers should have to know about this stuff.
> IMO there are much better ways than printk(), to inform tasks, and
> humans, of allocation failures.
I think with a tweaked warning message, a ratelimited printk is OK.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists