All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, jirislaby@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ratelimit: check the condition in WARN_RATELIMIT first
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:15:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <502E8A2C.3060606@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1345225144.10014.2.camel@joe2Laptop>

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.

> ratelimit(state) isn't
> and this will now always do condition.
> 
> (looks instead of speculates)
> 
> There's 1 current use of WARN_RATELIMIT and there's
> a condition of 1 so there's no problem here.

There is going to be one more in monday's -next. I've just added one to
the TTY code. The thing is that when you call ratelimit(state) it will
emit how many times you have called that function like I described in
the changelog:
tty_init_dev: 60 callbacks suppressed

Even when the condition is always false. Hence I added the condition to
the if and lazy evaluation will take care and ratelimit() won't be
called at all...

> __WARN_RATELIMIT is pretty stupid.
> It's only called from WARN_RATELIMIT.
> I think it shouldn't exist at all.
> 
> Maybe something like this?

Yup, something like that looks OK to me.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs

  reply	other threads:[~2012-08-17 18:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-17 13:42 [PATCH] ratelimit: check the condition in WARN_RATELIMIT first Jiri Slaby
2012-08-17 17:39 ` Joe Perches
2012-08-17 18:15   ` Jiri Slaby [this message]
2012-08-17 18:45     ` Joe Perches
2012-08-17 20:54       ` Jiri Slaby

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=502E8A2C.3060606@suse.cz \
    --to=jslaby@suse.cz \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.