From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] printk: increase devkmsg write() ratelimit
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:47:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181218174723.GK7485@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181218165217.GA534@tigerII.localdomain>
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:52:17AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> But devkmsg ratelimits systemd errors, so one does not even know that
> "some debugging is required". For instance from my x86 box:
>
> Unmounting /home...
> [..]
> home.mount: Mount process exited, code=exited status=32
> Failed unmounting /home.
>
> I don't want to debug systemd, I want to know that something didn't
> work out. 10 messages max and 5 seconds interval looks a bit too strict.
So how much is not strict?
And what happens if you raise that ratelimiting level and the *one* line
which is most important for debugging an issue, still doesn't get logged
because all of a sudden, doofus is more talkative, overflows the new
limit and we drop the important line?
All I'm saying is, gradually raising the limit is the wrong approach
- there will always be a case where something important doesn't get
logged.
What we need is a different solution, maybe what Rostedt proposes or
so...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-18 17:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-18 9:18 [RFC][PATCH] printk: increase devkmsg write() ratelimit Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 10:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-18 11:17 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-18 13:09 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 11:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-12-18 13:07 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 14:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-12-18 14:55 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 15:03 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-12-18 15:14 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 15:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-12-18 16:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 17:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-18 17:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-12-19 8:50 ` Petr Mladek
2018-12-20 11:35 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-20 13:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-12-21 7:32 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 17:47 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-12-19 1:46 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-12-18 14:02 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181218174723.GK7485@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox