Re: GFP_ATOMIC page allocation failures.

[Nick Piggin]

On Friday 04 April 2008 20:52, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/