From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fault: speed up uffd-unit-test by 10x: rate-limit "MCE: Killing" logs
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 10:13:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <016d8cff-efc3-4ef1-9aff-7c21c48f2d69@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240507022939.236896-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
The patch subject is misleading. This should be "don't flood the system
log". Nobody cares about the speed of a unittest ;)
On 07.05.24 04:29, John Hubbard wrote:
> If a system experiences a lot of memory failures, then any associated
> printk() output really needs to be rate-limited. I noticed this while
> running selftests/mm/uffd-unit-tests, which logs 12,305 lines of output,
> adding (on my system) an extra 97 seconds of runtime due to printk time.
Recently discussed:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/a9e3120d-8b79-4435-b113-ceb20aa45ee2@alu.unizg.hr
See the pros/cons of using ratelimiting, and what an alternative for
uffd is that Axel is working on.
(CCing Peter and Axel)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-07 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-07 2:29 [PATCH] x86/fault: speed up uffd-unit-test by 10x: rate-limit "MCE: Killing" logs John Hubbard
2024-05-07 8:13 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2024-05-07 16:28 ` John Hubbard
2024-05-07 16:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-05-07 16:53 ` John Hubbard
2024-05-07 16:55 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-05-07 18:08 ` Axel Rasmussen
2024-05-07 18:10 ` John Hubbard
2024-05-07 18:15 ` Axel Rasmussen
2024-05-07 22:49 ` John Hubbard
2024-05-07 19:26 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=016d8cff-efc3-4ef1-9aff-7c21c48f2d69@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).