From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:59518 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933488Ab3CVP74 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:59:56 -0400 Message-ID: <514C7FF6.6070301@candelatech.com> (sfid-20130322_170000_715928_0442ECD1) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:59:50 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mac80211: Make un-found-rate splat a warn-once. References: <1363727997-1554-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <1363727997-1554-2-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> (sfid-20130319_222017_355151_860485B7) <1363948082.8238.9.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1363948082.8238.9.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/22/2013 03:28 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 14:19 -0700, greearb@candelatech.com wrote: >> From: Ben Greear >> >> After that, print it out with net_ratelimit. We saw a system >> continually hit this warning, for reasons unknown, and it >> seems it bogged the system down enough to make it go OOM. > > I'm not really sure I like this ... that points to a deeper problem, and > this just papers over it while causing more cost in the TX path for all > the different checks. If I add an 'unlikely' to the initial check, that gets back to the original TX path cost, or are you worried about something else? I think in most cases we should be using some variation of WARN_ONCE in all the places that splat a warning... Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com