From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752038AbeEPWMB (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2018 18:12:01 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:38488 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751150AbeEPWL7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2018 18:11:59 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZq4OmmEsGRAicjdiBRh/brmDM/6kgKUWjHudiCV168Ktk8nwuEAHwhJwfvgZGDegsLI6q32QQ== Message-ID: <1526508715.28243.34.camel@arista.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Omit double-printing ratelimit messages From: Dmitry Safonov To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@gmail.com, Arnd Bergmann Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 23:11:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20180516205437.GB4378@thunk.org> References: <20180510125211.12583-1-dima@arista.com> <20180510125211.12583-2-dima@arista.com> <20180510181901.GG8335@thunk.org> <1525977460.28243.2.camel@arista.com> <20180510194041.GH8335@thunk.org> <1525981807.28243.9.camel@arista.com> <20180511035150.GJ8335@thunk.org> <1526042463.28243.21.camel@arista.com> <1526485573.28243.30.camel@arista.com> <20180516205437.GB4378@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 (3.24.6-1.fc26) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 16:54 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:46:13PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > > > Yeah, but what you print is not total sum, it's since the last > > > interval because without mentioned flag ___ratelimit() will flush > > > missed counter and print "suppressed" message. They might even > > > double if say other proccess has called get_random_bytes() got to > > > ___ratelimit() and got preempted. This thread finishes > > > initializing random driver and prints this not-proper-sum > > > statistics, and when the code flow is back in the first context, > > > it will print statistics again from ___ratelimit() function. > > > > So, does it make sense to you, Theodore? > > If not - I'll just resend second patch rebasing and dropping this > > one. > > Yes, it's correct that it's not the total sum. I guess your > complaint > is that some of the messages are using the "callbacks suppressed" > message, and the last one is using the random drvier's custom message > which I think is much more user-friendly. That being said, although > I > think "callbacks suppressed is a terrible message, I agree that using > a single message makes more sense. So setting the > RATELIMIT_MSG_ON_RELEASE and then calling ratelimit_state_exit() from > crng_reseed() does make sense. > > In the future I'd like to push for some way to customize --- or > perhaps just fix --- "callbacks suppressed" to something more sane > like, "messages ratelimited", but that's more of an aesthetics issue. Thanks, Ted. As you've looked inside lib/ratelimit, care to review 2 patch from the series maybe? -- Thanks, Dmitry