Re: [PATCH net-next v4] bonding: rate-limit bonding driver inspect messages

From: Simon Horman
Date: Tue Feb 20 2024 - 08:07:52 EST


On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:34:37AM +0530, Praveen Kumar Kannoju wrote:
> Through the routine bond_mii_monitor(), bonding driver inspects and commits
> the slave state changes. During the times when slave state change and
> failure in aqcuiring rtnl lock happen at the same time, the routine
> bond_mii_monitor() reschedules itself to come around after 1 msec to commit
> the new state.
>
> During this, it executes the routine bond_miimon_inspect() to re-inspect
> the state chane and prints the corresponding slave state on to the console.
> Hence we do see a message at every 1 msec till the rtnl lock is acquired
> and state chage is committed.
>
> This patch doesn't change how bond functions. It only simply limits this
> kind of log flood.
>
> Signed-off-by: Praveen Kumar Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v4:
> - Rectification in the patch subject and versioning details.
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240219133721.4567-1-praveen.kannoju@xxxxxxxxxx/
> - Commit message is modified to provide summary of the issue, because of
> which rate-limiting the bonding driver messages is needed.
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240215172554.4211-1-praveen.kannoju@xxxxxxxxxx/
> - Use exising net_ratelimit() instead of introducing new rate-limit
> parameter.
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240214044245.33170-1-praveen.kannoju@xxxxxxxxxx/
> ---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 4e0600c..e92eba1 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -2610,12 +2610,13 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
> commit++;
> slave->delay = bond->params.downdelay;
> if (slave->delay) {
> - slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status down for %sinterface, disabling it in %d ms\n",
> - (BOND_MODE(bond) ==
> - BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) ?
> - (bond_is_active_slave(slave) ?
> - "active " : "backup ") : "",
> - bond->params.downdelay * bond->params.miimon);
> + if (net_ratelimit())
> + slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status down for %sinterface, disabling it in %d ms\n",
> + (BOND_MODE(bond) ==
> + BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) ?
> + (bond_is_active_slave(slave) ?
> + "active " : "backup ") : "",
> + bond->params.downdelay * bond->params.miimon);
> }

Hi Praveen,

As this is used several times I think that it would be worth introducing
a slave_info_ratelimit() helper. That is assuming slave_info() is still used
without a rate limit. If not, you could just add net_ratelimit directly
to slave_info().

If none of this is desirable for some reason, then could you consider
reducing indentation somehow. f.e.:

if (slave->delayi && net_ratelimit())
slave_info(...