From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932510Ab2CEU2z (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:28:55 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62099 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932461Ab2CEU2y (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:28:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:28:46 -0500 From: Josh Boyer To: John Stultz Cc: Dave Jones , Fedora Kernel Team , Linux Kernel , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: WARNING: Adjusting tsc more then 11% Message-ID: <20120305202845.GD17489@zod.bos.redhat.com> References: <20120305154411.GA29668@redhat.com> <1330972323.2191.74.camel@work-vm> <20120305192338.GA30491@redhat.com> <1330977010.2191.84.camel@work-vm> <20120305195619.GB17489@zod.bos.redhat.com> <1330979077.2191.96.camel@work-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1330979077.2191.96.camel@work-vm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 12:24:37PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > > > Ok. Well, just to level set: the warning is informative, and points to > > > unexpected, but not necessarily unsafe behavior. > > > > > > In fact, the risk (where mult is adjusted to be large enough to cause an > > > overflow) we're warning about have been present 2.6.36 or even possibly > > > before. The change in 3.2 which added the warning also added a more > > > conservative mult calculation, so we're less likely to get overflow > > > prone large mult values. > > > > Is there a reason you decided to use a WARN_ONCE, which dumps a full stack > > trace, instead of just printk(KERN_ERR ? > > Well, the WARN_ONCE behavior is really nice, since just a printk would > end up possibly filling the logs, since you might get one every tick. We have printk_once too. > > > So it would be great to get further feedback from folks who are seeing > > > this warning, so we can really hammer this out, but I don't want the > > > warning spooking anyone into thinking things are terribly broken. > > > > Right... people see backtraces and start thinking "my kernel is broken." > > > > I'm certainly not meaning to pick on you for this. Lately it seems all > > the rage to throw WARN_ONs for all kinds of error paths and leave the user > > to figure out how screwed they are. > > Its a trade-off, since we really do want to know if our code has been > pushed outside of its expected boundaries (either by unexpected hadware > behavior or by expectations being raised, like long nohz idle times), so > we have to get folks attention somewhat. The type of error reporting > Dave's managed to collect here is really great. It is, yes. Do you know, aside from distro kernel maintainers, how many reports have you gotten from actual users directly? > But at the same time, I agree there has been a few cases where the code > is limited more narrowly then the reality of existing hardware, and we > end up with a constant stream of error messages that get waved off as > broken hardware. > > There we need to either fix the code or drop the warnings, but I think > it gets hard when we really want to know about "unexpected behavior, > except on some wide swath of hardware that always acts poorly", where > conditionalizing the warnings isn't easy. Oh my. Quirks in the timekeeping code would just give me nightmares ;). josh