From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9EC1A6B004D for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 20:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n4Q0esiu005295 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 26 May 2009 09:40:54 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5040845DE51 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 09:40:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB3A45DE4F for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 09:40:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5F0E18006 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 09:40:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47541DB803E for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 09:40:53 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] Warn if we run out of swap space In-Reply-To: <4A1A057A.3080203@oracle.com> References: <20090524144056.0849.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <4A1A057A.3080203@oracle.com> Message-Id: <20090526093917.6846.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:40:52 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Randy Dunlap Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Pavel Machek , Dave Hansen List-ID: > >> @@ -410,6 +411,10 @@ swp_entry_t get_swap_page(void) > >> } > >> > >> nr_swap_pages++; > >> + if (!printed) { > >> + printed = 1; > >> + printk(KERN_WARNING "All of swap is in use. Some pages cannot be swapped out."); > >> + } > > > > Why don't you use WARN_ONCE()? > > Someone earlier in this patch thread (maybe Pavel?) commented that > WARN_ONCE() would cause a stack dump and that would be too harsh, > especially for users. I.e., just the message is needed here, not a > stack dump. Ah, makes sense. I agree with you. So, adding patch description is better? > > > lumpy reclaim on no swap system makes this warnings, right? > > if so, I think it's a bit annoy. > > > >> noswap: > >> spin_unlock(&swap_lock); > >> return (swp_entry_t) {0}; -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org