[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404241518210.24983@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cxie@...hat.com,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Print cpu number along with time
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK_CPU
> > > + if (!buf)
> > > + return snprintf(NULL, 0, "[%5lu.000000,%02x] ",
> >
> > %02x for a cpu? What happens on machines with 8k cpus?
>
> Ummm ... what issue do you see here, Greg? It'll print 0x1f40, no?
>
I think he's referring to the alignment with %02x.
> > And is this really an issue? Debugging by using printk is fun, but not
> > really something that people need to add a cpu number to. Why not just
> > use a tracepoint in your code to get the needed information instead?
>
> Well, if you have dmesg dump from panic that happens every other year, and
> you have to do post-mortem analysis on it, I am pretty sure you would love
> to be able to figure out how the stack traces would look like without
> inter-CPU interleaving. And I am pretty sure you wouldn't want to
> insert/enable a tracepoint and wait another two years for the bug to
> trigger again.
>
Sounds like the appropriate fix would be to serialize stack dumping to the
kernel log.
--
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