Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: GFP_ATOMIC page allocation failures. | Date | Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:59:53 +1100 |
| |
On Friday 04 April 2008 20:52, Bodo Eggert wrote: > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > 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. > > What about reverse ratelimiting: If the limit is reached, a backtrace will > be generated (and, off cause, positively ratelimited)?
I was thinking about that. I got as far as writing a simple patch to printk so that it would not start to trigger until it gets a 2nd event within 'n' jiffies of the first.
But actually developers do sometimes want see the event even if it is relatively infrequent...
| |