linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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 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).