Re: [PATCH] net/skbuff: silence warnings under memory pressure

On (09/05/19 13:23), Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

I think we can queue significantly much less irq_work-s from printk().

Petr, Steven, what do you think?

[..]

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.

Or did I miss something?

	-ss