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:   Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:39:00 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/skbuff: silence warnings under memory pressure
Message-ID: <20190906033900.GB1253@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20190904061501.GB3838@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190904064144.GA5487@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190904065455.GE3838@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190904071911.GB11968@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190904074312.GA25744@jagdpanzerIV>
 <1567599263.5576.72.camel@lca.pw>
 <20190904144850.GA8296@tigerII.localdomain>
 <1567629737.5576.87.camel@lca.pw>
 <20190905113208.GA521@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190905132334.52b13d95@oasis.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190905132334.52b13d95@oasis.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (09/05/19 13:23), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I think we can queue significantly much less irq_work-s from printk().
> > 
> > Petr, Steven, what do you think?

[..]
> I mean, really, do we need to keep calling wake up if it
> probably never even executed?

I guess ratelimiting you are talking about ("if it probably never even
executed") would be to check if we have already called wake up on the
log_wait ->head. For that we need to, at least, take log_wait spin_lock
and check that ->head is still in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; which is (quite,
but not exactly) close to what wake_up_interruptible() does - it doesn't
wake up the same task twice, it bails out on `p->state & state' check.

Or did I miss something?

	-ss