Re: [PATCH] mm: Drop "PFNs busy" printk in an expected path.

[Eric Anholt]

Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Dec 29 2016, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 29 2016, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> This has been already brought up
>>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.GD18437@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and there
>>>>> was a proposed patch for that which ratelimited the output
>>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130132848.GG18432@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx resp.
>>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/robbat2-20161130T195244-998539995Z@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> then the email thread just died out because the issue turned out to be a
>>>>> configuration issue. Michal indicated that the message might be useful
>>>>> so dropping it completely seems like a bad idea. I do agree that
>>>>> something has to be done about that though. Can we reconsider the
>>>>> ratelimit thing?
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the rate of the message has gone up during 4.9 -- it used
>>>> to be a few per second.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a regression which should be fixed.
>>>
>>> This is why I donât think removing the message is a good idea.  If you
>>> suddenly see a lot of those messages, something changed for the worse.
>>> If you remove this message, you will never know.
>>>
>>>> However, if this is an expected path during normal operation,
>>>
>>> This depends on your definition of âexpectedâ and ânormalâ.
>>>
>>> In general, I would argue that the fact those ever happen is a bug
>>> somewhere in the kernel â if memory is allocated as movable, it should
>>> be movable damn it!
>>
>> I was taking "expected" from dae803e165a11bc88ca8dbc07a11077caf97bbcb --
>> if this is a actually a bug, how do we go about debugging it?
>
> Thatâs why Iâve pointed out that this depends on the definition.  In my
> opinion itâs a design bug which is now nearly impossible to fix in
> efficient way.

OK, so the design is bad.  When you said bug, I definitely thought you
were saying that the message shouldn't happen in the design.

Given CMA's current design, should everyone using CMA see their logs
slowly growing with this message that is an secret code for "CMA's
design hasn't yet changed"?  If you want to have people be able to track
how often this is happening, let's make a perf event for it or something
instead.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature