Re: [PATCH net-next v6] bonding: rate-limit bonding driver inspect messages

[Jay Vosburgh]

Praveen Kumar Kannoju <praveen.kannoju@xxxxxxxxxx> 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>

Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>---
>v6: 
>  - Minor space additions addressed. 
>v5: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240221050809.4372-1-praveen.kannoju@xxxxxxxxxx/
>  - Redundant indentation addressed.
>v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240220050437.5623-1-praveen.kannoju@xxxxxxxxxx/
>  - 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 | 18 ++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>index 4e0600c..51fdb79 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>@@ -2609,7 +2609,7 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
> 			bond_propose_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_FAIL);
> 			commit++;
> 			slave->delay = bond->params.downdelay;
>-			if (slave->delay) {
>+			if (slave->delay && 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) ?
>@@ -2623,9 +2623,10 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
> 				/* recovered before downdelay expired */
> 				bond_propose_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_UP);
> 				slave->last_link_up = jiffies;
>-				slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status up again after %d ms\n",
>-					   (bond->params.downdelay - slave->delay) *
>-					   bond->params.miimon);
>+				if (net_ratelimit())
>+					slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status up again after %d ms\n",
>+						   (bond->params.downdelay - slave->delay) *
>+						   bond->params.miimon);
> 				commit++;
> 				continue;
> 			}
>@@ -2647,7 +2648,7 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
> 			commit++;
> 			slave->delay = bond->params.updelay;
> 
>-			if (slave->delay) {
>+			if (slave->delay && net_ratelimit()) {
> 				slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status up, enabling it in %d ms\n",
> 					   ignore_updelay ? 0 :
> 					   bond->params.updelay *
>@@ -2657,9 +2658,10 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
> 		case BOND_LINK_BACK:
> 			if (!link_state) {
> 				bond_propose_link_state(slave, BOND_LINK_DOWN);
>-				slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status down again after %d ms\n",
>-					   (bond->params.updelay - slave->delay) *
>-					   bond->params.miimon);
>+				if (net_ratelimit())
>+					slave_info(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link status down again after %d ms\n",
>+						   (bond->params.updelay - slave->delay) *
>+						   bond->params.miimon);
> 				commit++;
> 				continue;
> 			}
>-- 
>1.8.3.1
>
>