From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755853AbeAJOEN (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:04:13 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f178.google.com ([209.85.216.178]:33574 "EHLO mail-qt0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754743AbeAJOEL (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:04:11 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotLb5kcu/jUTYSeuukm0P1/LUzFBMwYQJLhKZ374pf792d9RgN1Fk5cufYVMXMZ81x6G2BV7A== Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:04:08 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Petr Mladek , Sergey Senozhatsky , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Rafael Wysocki , Pavel Machek , Tetsuo Handa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv6 00/12] printk: introduce printing kernel thread Message-ID: <20180110140408.GY3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <20171214181153.GZ3919388@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20171214132109.32ae6a74@gandalf.local.home> <20171222000932.GG1084507@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20171221231932.27727fab@vmware.local.home> <20180109200620.GQ3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180109170847.28b41eec@vmware.local.home> <20180109221705.GU3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180109174750.2551c2a1@vmware.local.home> <20180109225356.GW3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180110021827.350ba374@vmware.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180110021827.350ba374@vmware.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Hello, Steven. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:18:27AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > My point is, that your test is only hammering at a single CPU. You say > it is the scenario you see, which means that the OOM is printing out > more than it should, because if it prints it out once, it should not > print it out again for the same process, or go into a loop doing it > over and over on a single CPU. That would be a bug in the > implementation. That's not what's happening. You're not actually reading what I'm writing. Can you please go back and re-read the scenario I've been describing over and over again. Thanks. -- tejun