lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] printk: Ratelimit messages printed by console drivers
On (04/14/18 11:35), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/13/18 10:12), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > The interval is set to one hour. It is rather arbitrary selected time.
> > > It is supposed to be a compromise between never print these messages,
> > > do not lockup the machine, do not fill the entire buffer too quickly,
> > > and get information if something changes over time.
> >
> >
> > I think an hour is incredibly long. We only allow 100 lines per hour for
> > printks happening inside another printk?
> >
> > I think 5 minutes (at most) would probably be plenty. One minute may be
> > good enough.
>
> Besides 100 lines is absolutely not enough for any real lockdep splat.
> My call would be - up to 1000 lines in a 1 minute interval.

Well, if we want to basically turn printk_safe() into printk_safe_ratelimited().
I'm not so sure about it.

Besides the patch also rate limits printk_nmi->logbuf - the logbuf
PRINTK_NMI_DEFERRED_CONTEXT_MASK bypass, which is way too important
to rate limit it - for no reason.

Dunno, can we keep printk_safe() the way it is and introduce a new
printk_safe_ratelimited() specifically for call_console_drivers()?

Lockdep splat is a one time event, if we lose half of it - we, most
like, lose the entire report. And call_console_drivers() is not the
one and only source of warnings/errors/etc. So if we turn printk_safe
into printk_safe_ratelimited() [not sure we want to do it] for all
then I want restrictions to be as low as possible, IOW to log_store()
as many lines as possible.

Chatty console drivers is not exactly the case which printk_safe() was
meant to fix. I'm pretty sure I put call_console_drivers() under printk_safe
just because we call console_drivers with local IRQs disabled anyway and I
was too lazy to do something like this

---

@@ -2377,6 +2377,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
console_idx = log_next(console_idx);
console_seq++;
raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
+ __printk_safe_exit();

/*
* While actively printing out messages, if another printk()
@@ -2390,6 +2391,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
call_console_drivers(ext_text, ext_len, text, len);
start_critical_timings();

+ __printk_safe_enter();
if (console_lock_spinning_disable_and_check()) {
printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
return;
---
But, in general, I don't think there are real reasons for us to call
console drivers from printk_safe section: call_console_drivers()->printk()
will not deadlock, because vprintk_emit()->console_trylock_spinning() will
always fail.

-ss

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-16 03:48    [W:0.066 / U:4.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site