Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:54:30 +0200 | From | Jiri Slaby <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ratelimit: check the condition in WARN_RATELIMIT first |
| |
On 08/17/2012 08:45 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 20:15 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> On 08/17/2012 07:39 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 15:42 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>> Before calling __ratelimit in __WARN_RATELIMIT, check the condition >>>> first. When this check was not there, we got constant income of: >>>> tty_init_dev: 60 callbacks suppressed >>>> tty_init_dev: 59 callbacks suppressed >>> [] >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ratelimit.h b/include/linux/ratelimit.h >>> [] >>>> @@ -49,8 +49,9 @@ extern int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func); >>>> #define __WARN_RATELIMIT(condition, state, format...) \ >>>> ({ \ >>>> int rtn = 0; \ >>>> - if (unlikely(__ratelimit(state))) \ >>>> - rtn = WARN(condition, format); \ >>>> + int __rtcond = !!condition; \ >>>> + if (unlikely(__rtcond && __ratelimit(state))) \ >>>> + rtn = WARN(__rtcond, format); \ >>>> rtn; \ >>>> }) >>>> >>> >>> Hi Jiri. >>> >>> This seems fine to me but are there any conditions that >>> are computationally expensive? >> >> It's not about expensiveness of the computation. The complexity remained >> the same except I moved the computation one layer up. > > If ratelimit(state) is not true, condition wasn't tested > or performed at all. With this change, it's always done.
Ah, you meant this. Actually this was wrong/unexpected. When devs pass something to a function/macro they expect it to be evaluated. Exactly once.
Like in this (maybe not so good) code: void put_ref(int refcnt) { WARN_RATELIMIT(!--refcnt, "refcnt reached 0 unexpectedly"); }
You want the refcnt to be decremented no matter what ratelimit() returns.
thanks, -- js suse labs
| |