From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> Subject: Re: GFP_ATOMIC page allocation failures. Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:52:34 +0200 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: 7eggert@gmx.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: Nick Piggin , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , Chris Snook , Dave Jones Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.183]:64832 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752756AbYDDJxD (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:53:03 -0400 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thursday 03 April 2008 05:18, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Turning to Nick's comment, >> >> > It's still actually nice to know how often it is happening even for >> > these known good sites because too much can indicate a problem and >> > that you could actually bring performance up by tuning some things. >> >> then create a counter or acculuation buffer somewhere. >> >> We don't need spew every time there is memory pressure of this magnitude. > > Not a complete solution. Counter would be nice, but you need backtraces > and want a way to more proactively warn the user/tester/developer. > > I agree that I don't exactly like adding nowarns around, and I don't think > places like driver writers should have to know about this stuff. What about reverse ratelimiting: If the limit is reached, a backtrace will be generated (and, off cause, positively ratelimited)?