Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:39:55 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior |
| |
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:19:02 -0600 "Hawkes Steve-FSH016" <Steve.Hawkes@motorola.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > > > This patch causes a large and nasty reject. > > Probably because you patched 2.6.24. We're developing 2.6.25 now, and > > the difference between the two is very large inded. Please raise > patches > > against Linus's latest tree? > > Will do. I'm learning the process. I assume Linus's latest tree is the > one > listed as the latest prepatch for the stable Linux kernel tree.
No, the stable tree is 2.6.24. You'll want ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
> > > int net_ratelimit(void) > > > { > > > - return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost, net_msg_burst); > > > + static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = { > > > + .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ, > > > + .last_jiffies = 0, > > > + .missed = 0, > > > + .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ, > > > + .limit_burst = 10, > > > + .facility = "net" > > > + }; > > > + > > > + return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost, net_msg_burst, > &limit_state); > > > > I don't get it. There's one instance of limit_state, kernel-wide, and > > __printk_ratelimit() modifies it. What prevents one CPU's activities > from > > interfering with a second CPU's activities? > > The state is protected by the spinlock in __printk_ratelimit, like it is > in > the current kernel. Am I missing something?
ah, OK.
I've occasionally wondered if ratelimiting should be per-callsite rather than kernel-wide, but I'm not aware of the present setup causing anyone any problems.
| |