> This seems a bit odd. It means that the further apart the message bursts > are, the longer they are allowed to be. Or something. > > Wouldn't it be better to say "after each greater-than-five second window, > allow up to ten printk's as long as they happen in the next five > milliseconds"? Its 100% copied from the networking code. I would have thought we really want that behaviour, if Im on a serial console I can only tolerate a decent sized backtrace every few seconds. If I allow 10 bursts every 5 seconds then im screwed. Instead we allow the burst of 10 once but then ratelimit it to one per 5 seconds until we have had a long enough period of silence. The main thing is that over the long term we have an average of one message per 5 seconds. Anton - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20Joonas Kortesalmi
- Re: swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20Anton Blanchard
- Re: swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20Andrew Morton
- Re: swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20Anton Blanchard
- Re: swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20Andrew Morton
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.1-rc1-mm1 - ieee1394 broken again?
- Next by Date: Re: swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20
- Previous by thread: Re: swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20
- Next by thread: Re: swapper: page allocation failure. order:3, mode:0x20
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]