Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] devlink: Add auto dump flag to health reporter

Eran Ben Elisha
2020-03-26T09:06:49Z

On 3/26/2020 2:01 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:38:35 +0200 Eran Ben Elisha wrote:
>> On 3/25/2020 9:08 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 07:45:29PM CET, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:26:24 +0200 Eran Ben Elisha wrote:
>>>>> On low memory system, run time dumps can consume too much memory. Add
>>>>> administrator ability to disable auto dumps per reporter as part of the
>>>>> error flow handle routine.
>>>>>
>>>>> This attribute is not relevant while executing
>>>>> DEVLINK_CMD_HEALTH_REPORTER_DUMP_GET.
>>>>>
>>>>> By default, auto dump is activated for any reporter that has a dump method,
>>>>> as part of the reporter registration to devlink.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> include/uapi/linux/devlink.h | 2 ++
>>>>> net/core/devlink.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/devlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/devlink.h
>>>>> index dfdffc42e87d..e7891d1d2ebd 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/devlink.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/devlink.h
>>>>> @@ -429,6 +429,8 @@ enum devlink_attr {
>>>>> DEVLINK_ATTR_NETNS_FD, /* u32 */
>>>>> DEVLINK_ATTR_NETNS_PID, /* u32 */
>>>>> DEVLINK_ATTR_NETNS_ID, /* u32 */
>>>>> +
>>>>> + DEVLINK_ATTR_HEALTH_REPORTER_AUTO_DUMP, /* u8 */
>>>>> /* add new attributes above here, update the policy in devlink.c */
>>>>>
>>>>> __DEVLINK_ATTR_MAX,
>>>>> diff --git a/net/core/devlink.c b/net/core/devlink.c
>>>>> index ad69379747ef..e14bf3052289 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/core/devlink.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/core/devlink.c
>>>>> @@ -4837,6 +4837,7 @@ struct devlink_health_reporter {
>>>>> struct mutex dump_lock; /* lock parallel read/write from dump buffers */
>>>>> u64 graceful_period;
>>>>> bool auto_recover;
>>>>> + bool auto_dump;
>>>>> u8 health_state;
>>>>> u64 dump_ts;
>>>>> u64 dump_real_ts;
>>>>> @@ -4903,6 +4904,7 @@ devlink_health_reporter_create(struct devlink *devlink,
>>>>> reporter->devlink = devlink;
>>>>> reporter->graceful_period = graceful_period;
>>>>> reporter->auto_recover = !!ops->recover;
>>>>> + reporter->auto_dump = !!ops->dump;
>>>>> mutex_init(&reporter->dump_lock);
>>>>> refcount_set(&reporter->refcount, 1);
>>>>> list_add_tail(&reporter->list, &devlink->reporter_list);
>>>>> @@ -4983,6 +4985,10 @@ devlink_nl_health_reporter_fill(struct sk_buff *msg,
>>>>> nla_put_u64_64bit(msg, DEVLINK_ATTR_HEALTH_REPORTER_DUMP_TS_NS,
>>>>> reporter->dump_real_ts, DEVLINK_ATTR_PAD))
>>>>> goto reporter_nest_cancel;
>>>>> + if (reporter->ops->dump &&
>>>>> + nla_put_u8(msg, DEVLINK_ATTR_HEALTH_REPORTER_AUTO_DUMP,
>>>>> + reporter->auto_dump))
>>>>> + goto reporter_nest_cancel;
>>>>
>>>> Since you're making it a u8 - does it make sense to indicate to user
>>>
>>> Please don't be mistaken. u8 carries a bool here.
>
> Are you okay with limiting the value in the policy?
>
> I guess the auto-recover doesn't have it so we'd create a little
> inconsistency.
>
>>>> space whether the dump is disabled or not supported?
>>>
>>> If you want to expose "not supported", I suggest to do it in another
>>> attr. Because this attr is here to do the config from userspace. Would
>>> be off if the same enum would carry "not supported".
>>>
>>> But anyway, since you opened this can, the supported/capabilities
>>> should be probably passed by a separate bitfield for all features.
>>>
>>
>> Actually we supports trinary state per x attribute.
>> (x can be auto-dump or auto-recover which is supported since day 1)
>>
>> devlink_nl_health_reporter_fill can set
>> DEVLINK_ATTR_HEALTH_REPORTER_AUTO_X to {0 , 1 , no set}
>> And user space devlink propagates it accordingly.
>>
>> If auto_x is supported, user will see "auto_x true"
>> If auto_x is not supported, user will see "auto_x false"
>> If x is not supported at all, user will not the auto_x at all for this
>> reporter.
>
> Yeah, makes perfect the only glitch is that for auto-dump we have the
> old kernel case. auto-recover was there from day 1.
>
>>>> Right now no attribute means either old kernel or dump not possible.
>> when you run on old kernel, you will not see auto-dump attribute at all.
>> In any case you won't be able to distinguish in user space between
>> {auto-dump, no-auto-dump, no dump support}.
>
> Right.
>
> Anyway, I don't think this will matter in this particular case in
> practice, so if you're okay with the code as is:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
>
Thanks Jakub.

Dave,
I see the patchset is currently marked as Changes Requested. Can you
please modify?