Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Omit double-printing ratelimit messages | From | Dmitry Safonov <> | Date | Wed, 16 May 2018 16:46:13 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 13:41 +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 23:51 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 08:50:07PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > > > random uses __ratelimit() which calls ___ratelimit() with a > > > function > > > name. Depending on !RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE it prints how many > > > messages were suppressed every ratelimit interval (1 second for > > > random) > > > and flushes ratelimit_state::missed: > > > > So the thing about the ratelimit system is that if you have a burst > > of > > 1,000,000 within the one second burst window, and then nothing ever > > again, you will never see a message accounting for those 1,000,000 > > "callbacks" (which is a terrible wording; it just confuses people). > > > > If you have a burst of 1,000,000 calls to ratelimit, and then a > > month > > goes by, and *then* a single call to __ratelimit is called by > > printk, > > only *the* does the message about the suppressed "callback" get > > printed. > > Yes, if the initialization time of driver is lesser than a second. > If it's 1.1 sec - you'll have prints from ___ratelimit() and from > your > driver too. And they differ in format. > > > So in the case of the random driver, once the random driver is > > fully > > intialized, there will never be a call to __ratelimit() for the > > urandom ratelimit structures, so we manually print out the final > > number of suppressed message so there is proper accounting for > > them. > > So, there is this flag, AFAICS, which perfectly fits your purpose > RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE which will omit printing how many messages > were suppressed every interval of ___ratelimit(). And that will allow > you to print total in the end. > > > It is not a double-count. If we didn't do that, those suppressed > > warnings would never be mentioned by the kernel. > > Yeah, but what you print is not total sum, it's since the last > interval > because without mentioned flag ___ratelimit() will flush missed > counter > and print "suppressed" message. > They might even double if say other proccess has called > get_random_bytes() got to ___ratelimit() and got preempted. This > thread > finishes initializing random driver and prints this not-proper-sum > statistics, and when the code flow is back in the first context, it > will print statistics again from ___ratelimit() function.
So, does it make sense to you, Theodore? If not - I'll just resend second patch rebasing and dropping this one.
-- Thanks, Dmitry
| |