From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752425AbcGAIXB (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 04:23:01 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35089 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751673AbcGAIW5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 04:22:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:22:47 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Linus Torvalds , Steven Rostedt , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Franck Bui , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 1/2] ratelimit: Extend to print suppressed messages on release Message-ID: <20160701082247.GA27709@gmail.com> References: <1467194161-1472-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> <1467194161-1472-2-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1467194161-1472-2-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Borislav Petkov wrote: > +/* issue num suppressed message on exit */ > +#define RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE BIT(0) So this flag says that we should issue a ratelimit message when it occurs. > +static inline void ratelimit_state_exit(struct ratelimit_state *rs) > +{ > + if (!(rs->flags & RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE)) > + return; > + > + if (rs->missed) > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %d callbacks suppressed\n", > + current->comm, rs->missed); ... here we print the message if the RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE bit is set. > +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c > @@ -46,12 +46,14 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func) > rs->begin = jiffies; > > if (time_is_before_jiffies(rs->begin + rs->interval)) { > - if (rs->missed) > + if (rs->missed && !(rs->flags & RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE)) > printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %d callbacks suppressed\n", > func, rs->missed); But here we print the message if the RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE bit is zero. Is that intentional? Also, while we are changing it, I'd like to suggest a different message - it's talking about 'callbacks' but there's no callback here - we are skipping kernel log messages. So how about: pr_warn("%s: %d kernel log lines skipped, due to rate-limiting.\n" Thanks, Ingo