Thread (10 messages) 10 messages, 4 authors, 2017-01-02

Re: [PATCH] mm: Drop "PFNs busy" printk in an expected path.

From: Eric Anholt <hidden>
Date: 2016-12-30 22:15:22
Also in: linux-mm, lkml

Michal Nazarewicz [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, Dec 29 2016, Eric Anholt wrote:
quoted
Michal Nazarewicz [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Thu, Dec 29 2016, Eric Anholt wrote:
quoted
Michal Hocko [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
This has been already brought up
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.GD18437@dhcp22.suse.cz and there
was a proposed patch for that which ratelimited the output
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130132848.GG18432@dhcp22.suse.cz resp.
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/robbat2-20161130T195244-998539995Z@orbis-terrarum.net

then the email thread just died out because the issue turned out to be a
configuration issue. Michal indicated that the message might be useful
so dropping it completely seems like a bad idea. I do agree that
something has to be done about that though. Can we reconsider the
ratelimit thing?
I agree that the rate of the message has gone up during 4.9 -- it used
to be a few per second.
Sounds like a regression which should be fixed.

This is why I don’t think removing the message is a good idea.  If you
suddenly see a lot of those messages, something changed for the worse.
If you remove this message, you will never know.
quoted
However, if this is an expected path during normal operation,
This depends on your definition of ‘expected’ and ‘normal’.

In general, I would argue that the fact those ever happen is a bug
somewhere in the kernel – if memory is allocated as movable, it should
be movable damn it!
I was taking "expected" from dae803e165a11bc88ca8dbc07a11077caf97bbcb --
if this is a actually a bug, how do we go about debugging it?
That’s why I’ve pointed out that this depends on the definition.  In my
opinion it’s a design bug which is now nearly impossible to fix in
efficient way.
OK, so the design is bad.  When you said bug, I definitely thought you
were saying that the message shouldn't happen in the design.

Given CMA's current design, should everyone using CMA see their logs
slowly growing with this message that is an secret code for "CMA's
design hasn't yet changed"?  If you want to have people be able to track
how often this is happening, let's make a perf event for it or something
instead.

Attachments

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help