RE: [Linux-ia64] Re: prctl patch for fpu faults

From: Mallick, Asit K <asit.k.mallick_at_intel.com>
Date: 2001-10-11 06:18:38
David/Jesse,

I would like the default to be noprint. As Jack mentioned that there are
applications that will generate lots of these messages. These messages are
ok for development systems and debugging applications but for production
systems this creates problem. Most of the users want to run the applications
(production) that do not require changing the configuration. We have seen
people running applications on top of Linux and complaining about the
performance compared to other OSes. The performance difference is due to the
logging of these messages.

Thanks,
Asit


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Barnes [mailto:jbarnes@sgi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:34 AM
> Cc: linux-ia64@linuxia64.org
> Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: prctl patch for fpu faults
> 
> 
> Alright, I'll put a patch together that has noprint and 
> signal options for
> the unaligned and fpswa faults.  The current, rate limited 
> output will be
> the default.
> 
> Jesse
> 
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Jack Steiner wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > What if I were to get rid of the rate limited logging for both the
> > > unaligned and fpswa handlers?  Then there could just be a 
> NOPRINT option
> > > and a signal option for each; the default behavior would 
> be to log all
> > > messages.  If you'd rather not get rid of it, then I'll 
> just send a patch
> > > to enable NOPRINT for fpswa (similar to what the 
> unaligned handler does
> > > now) and a signal option.
> > 
> > IMHO, the default for FPSWA fault (& probably unaligned 
> access) should be OFF.
> > Lots of apps cause FP faults. AIM7, for example, causes 
> faults at a fairly high
> > rate. I doubt that any server site would like to see the 
> log polluted with 
> > these errors - especially since there is no way to identify 
> the offending app.
> > 
> > There should be a way a site can change the default logging 
> behavior & have it
> > apply to ALL tasks.. 
> > 
> > 
> > Remember that FPSWA is invoked for numerous reasons that 
> are NOT necessarily 
> > errors in the application. (AIM7 generates FPSWA faults 
> when it divides a
> > very small number by 2.0). Intel doesnt even specify all 
> the conditions that cause
> > FPSWA to be invoked.
> > 
> > As far as rate limited vs full logging, I like rate 
> limited. Otherwise, you can
> > flood the system with messages. If you are truly trying to 
> debug an app & identify 
> > places that cause faults, the SIGNAL method should be used 
> by the app. 
> > That way, additional info such as traceback & arguments can 
> be captured. 
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > After thinking about it for a while, it seems to me that 
> the kernel logging options
> > should be orthoginal to the user SIGNAL option. A site 
> should be able to select
> > NOPRINT/RATE-LOGGING/FULL_LOGGING. Independently, the user 
> to be able to select 
> > SIGNAL/NO_SIGNAL/PRINTALL. 
> > 
> > The kernel logging option should NOT be a task attribute. Just have
> > a static flag that controls logging. The value of the flag is 
> > NOPRINT/RATEPRINT/FULLPRINT. Default should be NOPRINT. 
> This option should
> > be able to be changed via operator command (/proc).
> > 
> > Independently, users might want to select SIGNAL/NOSIGNAL/(PRINT?) 
> > for faults from their application. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Does anyone else have an opinion on the rate limited 
> logging for the
> > > unaligned and fpswa handlers?  Some people have told me 
> that they don't
> > > think it's useful for admins or users to have some of the 
> messages but not
> > > all of them.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jesse
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, David Mosberger wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:38:57 -0700, Jesse Barnes 
> <jbarnes@sgi.com> said:
> > > > 
> > > >   Jesse> Wouldn't that mean you could only do one at a time,
> > > >   Jesse> i.e. you'd be stuck with the rate limiting 
> code even if you
> > > >   Jesse> just wanted a signal, since there'd be no way 
> to say NOPRINT
> > > >   Jesse> | SIGFPE?  I'm really just trying to fill the 
> needs of our
> > > >   Jesse> application programmers, who say they want to 
> get all the
> > > >   Jesse> messages and/or get a signal.
> > > > 
> > > > No, I don't think so:
> > > > 
> > > > 	DEFAULT:	log message (with rate limit)
> > > > 	NOPRINT:	be quiet about fixups (not rate limited)
> > > > 	SIGNAL:		send signal (not rate limited)
> > > > 	PRINTALL:	log message (not rate limited)
> > > > 
> > > > In other words, the rate-limiting only applies for the 
> DEFAULT setting.
> > > > 
> > > > 	--david
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Linux-IA64 mailing list
> > > Linux-IA64@linuxia64.org
> > > http://lists.linuxia64.org/lists/listinfo/linux-ia64
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Jack Steiner    (651-683-5302)   (vnet 233-5302)      
> steiner@sgi.com
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-IA64 mailing list
> > Linux-IA64@linuxia64.org
> > http://lists.linuxia64.org/lists/listinfo/linux-ia64
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-IA64 mailing list
> Linux-IA64@linuxia64.org
> http://lists.linuxia64.org/lists/listinfo/linux-ia64
> 
Received on Wed Oct 10 13:16:42 2001

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:05 EST