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:   Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:10:18 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, davem@davemloft.net,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/skbuff: silence warnings under memory pressure
Message-ID: <20190909011018.GB816@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <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>
 <20190906033900.GB1253@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190906153209.ugkeuaespn2q5yix@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190906153209.ugkeuaespn2q5yix@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (09/06/19 17:32), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > [..]
> > > 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.
> 
> I have just realized that only sleeping tasks are in the waitqueue.
> It is already handled by waitqueue_active() check.

Yes.

> I am afraid that we could not ratelimit the wakeups. The userspace
> loggers might then miss the last lines for a long.

That's my concern as well.

> We could move wake_up_klogd() back to console_unlock(). But it might
> end up with a back-and-forth games according to who is currently
> complaining.

We still don't need irq_work, tho.

If we can do
	printk()->console_unlock()->up()->try_to_wake_up()
then we can also do
	printk()           ->             try_to_wake_up()

It's LOGLEVEL_SCHED which tells us if we can try_to_wake_up()
or cannot.

> Sigh, I still suggest to ratelimit the warning about failed
> allocation.

Hard to imagine how many printk()-s we will have to ratelimit.
To imagine NET maintainers being OK with this is even harder.

	-ss