lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.25-rc4 rcupreempt.h WARNINGs while suspend/resume
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>
>
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:35:26PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:07:48AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > > > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:08:55PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > My syslog became a 2G size big file yestoday due to the warnings.
> > > > > > > How about change the WARN_ON to WARN_ON_ONCE?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, Dave,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I might be convinced to make this change for 2.6.26, but the condition
> > > > > > that the WARN_ON() is complaining about is quite serious, so I don't
> > > > > > want to take a chance on it getting lost in the noise in the 2.6.25
> > > > > > series.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seem reasonable?
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO, WARN_ON_ONCE is enough for my eyes :)
> > > >
> > > > I could believe that, but my experience has been that many others
> > > > need the condition to be obvious...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Better yet, is there some sort of time-limited WARN_ON that kicks out
> > > > > > a message at most once per second or some such? Enough to definitely
> > > > > > be noticed, but not enough to bring the machine to its knees?
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems there's no such functions/macros, but is is really needed?
> > > >
> > > > If everyone reports errors when they see isolated WARN_ON()s in their
> > > > logfiles, then no. But...
> > >
> > > Ok, I agree with you.
> > >
> > > Maybe something like WARN_ON_HZ(condition) or
> > > WARN_ON_PERIOD(condition, period_value)?
> >
> > Makes sense to me! The other benefit of this sort of thing is that
> > it lets you know whether the problem was a one-off or whether it
> > continued happening -- but without too much log bloat.
> >
> > I was thinking in terms of once every ten seconds, but am not all
> > that hung up on the exact value of the period.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Then, WARN_ON_SECS(condition, seconds) ?

Sorry, seconds must be a fixed number here, so your 10 secs maybe
suitable for it.

>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-07 08:47    [W:0.264 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site