On Thu, Dec 29 2016, Eric Anholt wrote: > Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> writes: > >> This has been already brought up >> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.gd18...@dhcp22.suse.cz and there >> was a proposed patch for that which ratelimited the output >> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130132848.gg18...@dhcp22.suse.cz resp. >> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/robbat2-20161130t195244-9985399...@orbis-terrarum.net >> >> 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 don’t 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 ‘expected’ and ‘normal’. In general, I would argue that the fact those ever happen is a bug somewhere in the kernel – if memory is allocated as movable, it should be movable damn it! > we shouldn't be clogging dmesg with it at all. So, I'd rather we go > with this patch, that is unless the KERN_DEBUG in your ratelimit patch > would keep it out of journald as well (un-ratelimited, journald was > eating 10% of a CPU processing the message, and I'd rather it not be > getting logged at all). -- Best regards ミハウ “𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓪86” ナザレヴイツ «If at first you don’t succeed, give up skydiving»
