On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:26:01 -0500 Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:31:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:13:32 -0500 Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org> > > wrote: > > > > > @@ -63,6 +64,9 @@ int drop_caches_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int > > > write, > > > iterate_supers(drop_pagecache_sb, NULL); > > > if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2) > > > drop_slab(); > > > + printk_ratelimited(KERN_INFO "%s (%d): dropped kernel caches: > > > %d\n", > > > + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), > > > + sysctl_drop_caches); > > > } > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > My concern with this is that there may be people whose > > other-party-provided software uses drop_caches. Their machines will > > now sit there emitting log messages and there's nothing they can do > > about it, apart from whining at their vendors. > > Ironically, we have a customer that is complaining that we currently > do not log these events, and they want to know who in their stack is > being idiotic. Right. But if we release a kernel which goes blah on every write to drop_caches, that customer has logs full of blahs which they are now totally uninterested in. > > We could do something like this? > > They can already change the log level. Suppressing unrelated things... > The below will suppress > valuable debugging information in a way that still results in > inconspicuous looking syslog excerpts, which somewhat undermines the > original motivation for this change. Yes, somewhat. It is a compromise. You can see my concern here? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
