Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:29:16 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: warn only once if page table misaccounting is
 detected
Message-ID: <20181127162916.GB6923@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20181127083603.39041-1-heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
 <20181127131916.GX12455@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20181127143638.GE3625@osiris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181127143638.GE3625@osiris>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 27-11-18 15:36:38, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:19:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 27-11-18 09:36:03, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > Use pr_alert_once() instead of pr_alert() if page table misaccounting
> > > has been detected.
> > > 
> > > If this happens once it is very likely that there will be numerous
> > > other occurrence as well, which would flood dmesg and the console with
> > > hardly any added information. Therefore print the warning only once.
> > 
> > Have you actually experience a flood of these messages? Is one per mm
> > message really that much?
> 
> Yes, I did. Since in this case all compat processes caused the message
> to appear, I saw thousands of these messages.

This means something went colossally wrong and seeing an avalanche of
messages might be actually helpful because you can at least see the
pattern. I wonder whether the underlying issue would be obvious from a
single instance.

Maybe we want ratelimit instead?
 
> > If yes why rss counters do not exhibit the same problem?
> 
> No rss counter messages appeared. Or do you suggest that the other
> pr_alert() within check_mm() should also be changed?

Whatever we go with (and I do not have a strong opinion here) we should
be consistent I believe.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs