Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:19:11 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/skbuff: silence warnings under memory pressure
Message-ID: <20190904071911.GB11968@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <6109dab4-4061-8fee-96ac-320adf94e130@gmail.com>
 <1567178728.5576.32.camel@lca.pw>
 <229ebc3b-1c7e-474f-36f9-0fa603b889fb@gmail.com>
 <20190903132231.GC18939@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <1567525342.5576.60.camel@lca.pw>
 <20190903185305.GA14028@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <1567546948.5576.68.camel@lca.pw>
 <20190904061501.GB3838@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190904064144.GA5487@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190904065455.GE3838@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190904065455.GE3838@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (09/04/19 08:54), Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am sorry, I could have been more explicit when CCing you.

Oh, sorry! My bad!

> Sure the ratelimit is part of the problem. But I was more interested
> in the potential livelock (infinite loop) mentioned by Qian Cai. It
> is not important whether we generate one or more lines of output from
> the softirq context as long as the printk generates more irq processing
> which might end up doing the same. Is this really possible?

Hmm. I need to look at this more... wake_up_klogd() queues work only once
on particular CPU: irq_work_queue(this_cpu_ptr(&wake_up_klogd_work));

bool irq_work_queue()
{
	/* Only queue if not already pending */
	if (!irq_work_claim(work))
		return false;

	 __irq_work_queue_local(work);
}

softirqs are processed in batches, right? The softirq batch can add XXXX
lines to printk logbuf, but there will be only one PRINTK_PENDING_WAKEUP
queued. Qian Cai mentioned that "net_rx_action softirqs again which are
plenty due to connected via ssh etc." so the proportion still seems to be
N:1 - we process N softirqs, add 1 printk irq_work.

But need to think more.
Interesting question.

	-ss