[Intel-gfx] [PATCHv3] lib/ratelimit: Lockless ratelimiting

[Petr Mladek]

On Wed 2018-07-18 19:49:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Dmitry Safonov <dima at arista.com> wrote:
> > I would be glad if someone helps/bothers to review the change :C
> >
> 
> Perhaps Petr and / or Steven can help you.


> > Thanks,
> > Dmitry
> >
> > On Tue, 2018-07-03 at 23:56 +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> >> Currently ratelimit_state is protected with spin_lock. If the .lock
> >> is
> >> taken at the moment of ___ratelimit() call, the message is suppressed
> >> to
> >> make ratelimiting robust.
> >>
> >> That results in the following issue issue:
> >>       CPU0                          CPU1
> >> ------------------           ------------------
> >> printk_ratelimit()           printk_ratelimit()
> >>         |                             |
> >>   try_spin_lock()              try_spin_lock()
> >>         |                             |
> >> time_is_before_jiffies()          return 0; // suppress
> >>
> >> So, concurrent call of ___ratelimit() results in silently suppressing
> >> one of the messages, regardless if the limit is reached or not.
> >> And rc->missed is not increased in such case so the issue is covered
> >> from user.
> >>
> >> Convert ratelimiting to use atomic counters and drop spin_lock.
> >>
> >> Note: That might be unexpected, but with the first interval of
> >> messages
> >> storm one can print up to burst*2 messages. So, it doesn't guarantee
> >> that in *any* interval amount of messages is lesser than burst.
> >> But, that differs lightly from previous behavior where one can start
> >> burst=5 interval and print 4 messages on the last milliseconds of
> >> interval + new 5 messages from new interval (totally 9 messages in
> >> lesser than interval value):
> >>
> >>    msg0              msg1-msg4 msg0-msg4
> >>     |                     |       |
> >>     |                     |       |
> >>  |--o---------------------o-|-----o--------------------|--> (t)
> >>                           <------->
> >>                        Lesser than burst
> >>

I am a bit confused. Does this patch fix two problems?

   + Lost rc->missed update when try_spin_lock() fails
   + printing up to burst*2 messages in a give interval

It would make the review much easier if you split it into more
patches and fix the problems separately.

Otherwise, it looks promissing...

Best Regards,
Petr

PS: I have vacation the following two weeks. Anyway, please, CC me
if you send any new version.

Best Regards,
Petr