From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754944AbeAHB6Z (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Sun, 7 Jan 2018 20:58:25 -0500
Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:45831 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754854AbeAHB6X (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 7 Jan 2018 20:58:23 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovjdZPfOCVfAWLO3IWHAjGcFHTQAOJF677MufTebSFAt4zMhtO/cCZ6Rp1tnS/tZ9EDc11xUg==
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:58:18 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: ratelimit end_swap_bio_write() error
Message-ID: <20180108015818.GA533@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20180106043407.25193-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20180106094124.GB16576@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180106100313.GA527@tigerII.localdomain>
 <20180106133417.GA23629@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180106133417.GA23629@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On (01/06/18 14:34), Michal Hocko wrote:
> > zsmalloc allocation is just one possibility; an error in
> > compressing algorithm is another one, yet is rather unlikely.
> > most likely it's OOM which can cause problems. but in any case
> > it's sort of unclear what should be done. an error can be a
> > temporary one or a fatal one, just like in __swap_writepage()
> > case. so may be both write error printk()-s can be dropped.
> 
> Then I would suggest starting with sorting out which of those errors are
> critical and which are not and report the error accordingly. I am sorry
> to be fuzzy here but I am not familiar with the code to be more
> specific. Anyway ratelimiting sounds more like a paper over than a real
> solution. Also it sounds quite scary that you can see so many failures
> to actually lock up the system just by printing a message...

the lockup is not the main problem and I'm not really trying to
address it here. we simply can fill up the entire kernel logbuf
with the same "Write-error on swap-device" errors.

	-ss