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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).