From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1f94Cc-00075W-Oj for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:41:59 +0200 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EADAD11 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:41:51 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: [MODERATED] Re: terminal fault Message-ID: <20180419074151.GP17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180418083529.GT17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180418144556.GA9939@localhost.localdomain> <20180419072801.GN17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Thu 19-04-18 09:33:31, speck for Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, speck for Michal Hocko wrote: > > > we might be more anal and fail to swap on such a large partitions/files > > but I do not see much point making this more complicated than necessary. > > I think that issuing WARN_ON_ONCE() somewhere in swapon() in cases where > the swap is too big so that it doesn't cover it for maximum pfn on given > microarchitecture (&& in case we're running on affected CPU, which for > starters will mean empty whitelist) could be reasonable. Do we have that max pfn per uarch? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs