Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:57:52 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-rc4 rcupreempt.h WARNINGs while suspend/resume |
| |
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:35:26PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:07:48AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney > > > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:08:55PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > > My syslog became a 2G size big file yestoday due to the warnings. > > > > > How about change the WARN_ON to WARN_ON_ONCE? > > > > > > > > Hello, Dave, > > > > > > > > I might be convinced to make this change for 2.6.26, but the condition > > > > that the WARN_ON() is complaining about is quite serious, so I don't > > > > want to take a chance on it getting lost in the noise in the 2.6.25 > > > > series. > > > > > > > > Seem reasonable? > > > > > > IMHO, WARN_ON_ONCE is enough for my eyes :) > > > > I could believe that, but my experience has been that many others > > need the condition to be obvious... > > > > > > > > Better yet, is there some sort of time-limited WARN_ON that kicks out > > > > a message at most once per second or some such? Enough to definitely > > > > be noticed, but not enough to bring the machine to its knees? > > > > > > Seems there's no such functions/macros, but is is really needed? > > > > If everyone reports errors when they see isolated WARN_ON()s in their > > logfiles, then no. But... > > Ok, I agree with you. > > Maybe something like WARN_ON_HZ(condition) or > WARN_ON_PERIOD(condition, period_value)?
Makes sense to me! The other benefit of this sort of thing is that it lets you know whether the problem was a one-off or whether it continued happening -- but without too much log bloat.
I was thinking in terms of once every ten seconds, but am not all that hung up on the exact value of the period.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
| |