[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140425142056.GB12157@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:20:56 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] printk: print initial logbuf contents before
re-enabling interrupts
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:01:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 02:29:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:36:09PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > When running on a hideously slow system (~10Mhz FPGA) with a bunch of
>
> Hey, still faster then the 4.77 MHz 8088 chips I started with :-)
... but you didn't have to run KVM guests on that sucker!
> > > debug printk invocations on the timer interrupt path, we end up filling
> > > the log buffer faster than we can drain it.
> > >
> > > The reason is that console_unlock (which is responsible for moving
> > > messages out of logbuf to hand over to the console driver) removes one
> > > message at a time, briefly re-enabling interrupts between each of them.
> > > If the interrupt path prints more than a single message, then we can
> > > easily generate more messages than we can print for a regular, recurring
> > > interrupt (e.g. a 1khz timer). This results in messages getting silently
> > > dropped, leading to counter-intuitive, incomplete printk traces on the
> > > console.
> > >
> > > Rather than run the console_unlock loop with interrupts disabled (which
> > > has obvious latency problems), this patch records the sequence number of
> > > the last message in the log buffer after taking the logbuf_lock. We can
> > > then print this fixed amount of work before re-enabling interrupts again,
> > > making sure we keep up with ourself. Other CPUs could still potentially
> > > flood the buffer, but there's little that we can do to protect against
> > > that.
> >
> > Any thoughts on these two patches? I can understand the reluctance to make
> > changes to printk, but I had a horrible time debugging timers without these
> > patches!
>
> They look fine to me.
Thanks, Peter. Andrew, would you mind taking these please? They look a bit
out of place in the arm64 tree.
I can repost them if necessary.
Cheers,
Will
--
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