Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit

From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, jeyu@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, acme@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, martin.wilck@suse.com, mmarek@suse.com,
	hare@suse.com, rwright@hpe.com, jeffm@suse.com, DSterba@suse.com,
	fdmanana@suse.com, neilb@suse.com, linux@roeck-us.net,
	rgoldwyn@suse.com, subashab@codeaurora.org, xypron.glpk@gmx.de,
	keescook@chromium.org, atomlin@redhat.com, mbenes@suse.cz,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
	jpoimboe@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, mingo@redhat.com,
	alan@linux.intel.com, tytso@mit.edu, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] kmod: throttle kmod thread limit
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:19:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170622151936.GE1538@pathway.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170526211228.27764-5-mcgrof@kernel.org>

On Fri 2017-05-26 14:12:28, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> If we reach the limit of modprobe_limit threads running the next
> request_module() call will fail. The original reason for adding
> a kill was to do away with possible issues with in old circumstances
> which would create a recursive series of request_module() calls.
> We can do better than just be super aggressive and reject calls
> once we've reached the limit by simply making pending callers wait
> until the threshold has been reduced.
> 
> The only difference is the clutch helps with avoiding making
> request_module() requests fatal more often. With x86_64 qemu,
> with 4 cores, 4 GiB of RAM it takes the following run time to
> run both tests:
> 
> time ./kmod.sh -t 0008
> real    0m12.364s
> user    0m0.704s
> sys     0m5.373s
> 
> time ./kmod.sh -t 0009
> real    0m47.638s
> user    0m1.033s
> sys     0m5.425s
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/kmod.c                        | 16 +++++++---------
>  tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh | 24 ++----------------------
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kmod.c b/kernel/kmod.c
> index 3e346c700e80..46b12fed6fd0 100644
> --- a/kernel/kmod.c
> +++ b/kernel/kmod.c
> @@ -163,14 +163,11 @@ int __request_module(bool wait, const char *fmt, ...)
>  		return ret;
>  
>  	if (atomic_dec_if_positive(&kmod_concurrent_max) < 0) {
> -		/* We may be blaming an innocent here, but unlikely */
> -		if (kmod_loop_msg < 5) {
> -			printk(KERN_ERR
> -			       "request_module: runaway loop modprobe %s\n",
> -			       module_name);
> -			kmod_loop_msg++;
> -		}
> -		return -ENOMEM;
> +		pr_warn_ratelimited("request_module: kmod_concurrent_max (%u) close to 0 (max_modprobes: %u), for module %s\n, throttling...",
> +				    atomic_read(&kmod_concurrent_max),
> +				    50, module_name);

It is weird to pass the constant '50' via %s. Also a #define should be
used to keep it in sync with the kmod_concurrent_max initialization.

> +		wait_event_interruptible(kmod_wq,
> +					 atomic_dec_if_positive(&kmod_concurrent_max) >= 0);
>  	}
>  
>  	trace_module_request(module_name, wait, _RET_IP_);
> @@ -178,6 +175,7 @@ int __request_module(bool wait, const char *fmt, ...)
>  	ret = call_modprobe(module_name, wait ? UMH_WAIT_PROC : UMH_WAIT_EXEC);
>  
>  	atomic_inc(&kmod_concurrent_max);
> +	wake_up_all(&kmod_wq);

Does it make sense to wake up all waiters when we released the resource
only for one? IMHO, a simple wake_up() should be here.

I am sorry for the late review. The month ran really fast.

Best Regards,
Petr