Subject: Re: commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 leads to failed boot

From: Bert Karwatzki <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:40:25 +0200

Am Mittwoch, dem 23.04.2025 um 12:56 -0700 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 09:19:56PM +0200, Bert Karwatzki wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, dem 23.04.2025 um 11:07 -0700 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 08:49:08PM +0530, Aithal, Srikanth wrote:
> > > > On 4/23/2025 7:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 07:09:42PM +0530, Aithal, Srikanth wrote:
> > > > > > On 4/23/2025 5:24 PM, Bert Karwatzki wrote:
> > > > > > > Since linux next-20250422 booting fails on my MSI Alpha 15 Laptop runnning
> > > > > > > debian sid. When booting kernel message appear on screen but no messages from
> > > > > > > init (systemd). There are also no logs written even thought emergency sync
> > > > > > > via magic sysrq works (a message is printed on screen), presumably because
> > > > > > > / is not mounted. I bisected this (from 6.15-rc3 to next-20250422) and found
> > > > > > > commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 as the first bad commit.
> > > > > > > Reverting commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 in next-20250422 fixes the issue.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On AMD platform as well boot failed starting next-20250422, bisecting the
> > > > > > issue led me to same commit dd4cf8c9e1f4. I have attached kernel config and
> > > > > > logs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you all for the bisection and the report!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please check out the predecessor of commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 ("ratelimit:
> > > > > Force re-initialization when rate-limiting re-enabled"):
> > > > > 
> > > > > 13fa70e052dd ("ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst to disable ratelimiting")
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then please apply the patch shown below, and let me know what happens?
> > > > > (Yes, I should have split that commit up...)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > > 
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > > > index 04f16b8e24575..13ed636642270 100644
> > > > > --- a/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > > > +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > > > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
> > > > >   	unsigned long flags;
> > > > >   	int ret;
> > > > > -	if (!interval || !burst)
> > > > > +	if (interval <= 0 || burst <= 0)
> > > > >   		return 1;
> > > > >   	/*
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I applied above patch on top of 13fa70e052dd ("ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst
> > > > to disable ratelimiting") [linux-20250423]. This is fixing the boot issue.
> > > > 
> > > > Tested-by: Srikanth Aithal <[email-masked]>
> > > 
> > > Thank you both, and to Bert for intuiting the correct -next commit!
> > > 
> > > Could you please try the next increment, which is this patch, again
> > > on top of 24ff89c63355 ("ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst to > disable
> > > ratelimiting")?
> > > 
> > > In the meantime, I will expose the version you two just tested to
> > > -next.
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > index 04f16b8e24575..8f6c54f719ef2 100644
> > > --- a/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > @@ -35,8 +35,10 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
> > >  	unsigned long flags;
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  
> > > -	if (!interval || !burst)
> > > +	if (interval <= 0 || burst <= 0) {
> > > +		ret = burst > 0;
> > >  		return 1;
> > > +	}
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * If we contend on this state's lock then just check if
> > 
> > If you set "ret = burst > 0", but "return 1" this will make no difference
> > (except in the case of a major compiler bug, probably), as I wrote in my other
> > email which overlapped yours, this fixes the issue in next-20250422:
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > index b5c727e976d2..fc28f6cf8269 100644
> > --- a/lib/ratelimit.c
> > +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
> >          * interval says never limit.
> >          */
> >         if (interval <= 0 || burst <= 0) {
> > -               ret = burst > 0;
> > +               ret = 1;
> >                 if (!(READ_ONCE(rs->flags) & RATELIMIT_INITIALIZED) ||
> >                     !raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags))
> >                         return ret;
> 
> You are quite right, your patch does fix the issue that you three say.
> Unfortunately, it prevents someone from completely suppressing output
> by setting burst to zero.  Could you please try the patch below?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
> index 04f16b8e24575..d6531e5c6ec4e 100644
> --- a/lib/ratelimit.c
> +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (!interval || !burst)
> -		return 1;
> +	if (interval <= 0 || burst <= 0)
> +		return interval == 0 || burst > 0;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If we contend on this state's lock then just check if

This patch will make no difference for me as I've monitored every call to
___ratelimit() with "printk(KERN_INFO "%s: interval = %d burst = %d\n",
__func__, interval, burst)" and at least for me burst == 0 is always acompanied
by intervall == 0.

Bert Karwatzki