From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f72.google.com (mail-pg0-f72.google.com [74.125.83.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142E86B0007 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 21:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg0-f72.google.com with SMTP id x81so2299704pgx.21 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:47:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id g184sor2181807pgc.119.2018.04.15.18.47.34 for (Google Transport Security); Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:47:29 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Ratelimit messages printed by console drivers Message-ID: <20180416014729.GB1034@jagdpanzerIV> References: <20180413124704.19335-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20180413101233.0792ebf0@gandalf.local.home> <20180414023516.GA17806@tigerII.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180414023516.GA17806@tigerII.localdomain> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Steven Rostedt , Petr Mladek Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Peter Zijlstra , Jan Kara , Tetsuo Handa , Sergey Senozhatsky , Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky 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