RE: [PATCH 19/24] sunrpc: Remove unnecessary OOM logging messages

Myklebust, Trond
2011-08-29T22:08:41Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1653 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boaz Harrosh [mailto:bharrosh@panasas.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 5:55 PM
> To: David Miller
> Cc: Myklebust, Trond; joe@perches.com; bfields@fieldses.org;
> neilb@suse.de; linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/24] sunrpc: Remove unnecessary OOM logging
> messages
>
> On 08/29/2011 02:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:36:17 -0700
> >
> >> Big NACK...
> >>
> >> By whose standard are those "not useful"?
> >
> > By mine, that's for sure. It's duplicating something that the
> allocation
> > layers are already going to print.
>
> I have a question about that. Are the dprints going to show the stack
> backtrace?
> Otherwise how can I see which exact allocation failed and was not
> properly handled?
>
> If yes above? then I'm not sure I like it either, because am I'll be
> getting a full
> stack backtrace for every failed allocation?
>
> But I might like it if I try. How do I turn on allocation failures
> prints?
> Can I filter out to print only GFP_KERNEL failures and or other GFP
> combinations?

Right. If every GFP_ATOMIC or GFP_NOWAIT is going to print out stack traces, then we're heading for absolute insanity. If not, then the existing dprintk()s make a lot more sense, 'cos they are turned on only when the administrator notices a problem, and is trying to debug it.

Trond

ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éÝ¶\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dÊ‡Ú™ë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥