[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120803104212.GA6936@x1.osrc.amd.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:42:12 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
Cc: "Pandita, Vikram" <vikram.pandita@...com>,
Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Vimarsh Zutshi <vimarsh.zutshi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: add option to print cpu id
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 12:09:15PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> That would be needed, I guess. We easily have server systems with more
> than 255 CPUs. It will only be a matter of time, that the number of
> CPUs will increase for everybody, I guess.
Actually, AFAICR, we already have SGI machines booting Linux on 4K cpus. Now.
> > b) to put cpuid in struct cont and struct log - under the #ifdef macro?
>
> As said, I really can't tell how generally useful it is, and if people
> think that it should be there unconditionally, should not be there at
> all, or as a compile time option. Others might have an opinion on
> that.
>
> I personally never missed the CPU-ID in the logs. I personally would
> find the PID/task ID more interesting, and even that I never really
> missed. :)
And even then you can add debugging code to dump the stuff you need.
And I have to agree with Kai here, having the cpu number in dmesg is
not something I'd wish for - printk timestampts OTOH has at least some
usecases.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists