Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:47:41 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Petr Mládek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Arun KS <arunks.linux@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] printk: allow increasing the ring buffer depending on
	the number of CPUs

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:34:47AM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
> On Tue 2014-06-10 18:04:45, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
> > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> > index 9d3585b..1814436 100644
> > --- a/init/Kconfig
> > +++ b/init/Kconfig
> > @@ -806,6 +806,34 @@ config LOG_BUF_SHIFT
> >  		     13 =>  8 KB
> >  		     12 =>  4 KB
> >  
> > +config LOG_CPU_BUF_SHIFT
> > +	int "CPU kernel log buffer size contribution (13 => 8 KB, 17 => 128KB)"
> > +	range 0 21
> > +	default 0
> > +	help
> > +	  The kernel ring buffer will get additional data logged onto it
> > +	  when multiple CPUs are supported. Typically the contributions is a
> > +	  few lines when idle however under under load this can vary and in the
> > +	  worst case it can mean loosing logging information. You can use this
> > +	  to set the maximum expected mount of amount of logging contribution
> > +	  under load by each CPU in the worst case scenerio. Select a size as
> > +	  a power of 2. For example if LOG_BUF_SHIFT is 18 and if your
> > +	  LOG_CPU_BUF_SHIFT is 12 your kernel ring buffer size will be as
> > +	  follows having 16 CPUs as possible.
> > +
> > +	     ((1 << 18) + ((16 - 1) * (1 << 12))) / 1024 = 316 KB
> 
> It might be better to use the CPU_NUM-specific value as a minimum of
> the needed space. Linux distributions might want to distribute kernel
> with non-zero value and still use the static "__log_buf" on reasonable
> small systems.

Not sure if I follow what you mean by CPU_NUM-specific, can you elaborate?
The default in this patch is to ignore this, do you mean that upstream
should probably default to a non-zero value here and then let distributions
select 0 for some kernel builds ? If so then perhaps adding a sysctl
override value might be good to allow only small systems to override
this to 0?

> > +	  Where as typically you'd only end up with 256 KB. This is disabled
> > +	  by default with a value of 0.
> 
> I would add:
> 
> 	This value is ignored when "log_buf_len" commandline parameter
> 	is used. It forces the exact size of the ring buffer.

Good point, I've amended this in.

> > +	  Examples:
> > +		     17 => 128 KB
> > +		     16 => 64 KB
> > +	             15 => 32 KB
> > +	             14 => 16 KB
> > +		     13 =>  8 KB
> > +		     12 =>  4 KB
> 
> I think that we should make it more cleat that it is per-CPU here,
> for example:
> 
> 		17 => 128 KB for each CPU
> 		16 =>  64 KB for each CPU
> 		15 =>  32 KB for each CPU
> 		14 =>  16 KB for each CPU
> 		13 =>   8 KB for each CPU
> 		12 =>   4 KB for each CPU

Thanks, amended as well.

> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > index 7228258..2023424 100644
> > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ static u32 clear_idx;
> >  #define LOG_ALIGN __alignof__(struct printk_log)
> >  #endif
> >  #define __LOG_BUF_LEN (1 << CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT)
> > +#define __LOG_CPU_BUF_LEN (1 << CONFIG_LOG_CPU_BUF_SHIFT)
> >  static char __log_buf[__LOG_BUF_LEN] __aligned(LOG_ALIGN);
> >  static char *log_buf = __log_buf;
> >  static u32 log_buf_len = __LOG_BUF_LEN;
> > @@ -752,9 +753,10 @@ void __init setup_log_buf(int early)
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  	char *new_log_buf;
> >  	int free;
> > +	int cpu_extra = (num_possible_cpus() - 1) * __LOG_CPU_BUF_LEN;
> >  
> > -	if (!new_log_buf_len)
> > -		return;
> > +	if (!new_log_buf_len && cpu_extra > 1)
> > +		new_log_buf_len = __LOG_BUF_LEN + cpu_extra;
> 
> We still should return when both new_log_buf_len and cpu_extra are
> zero and call here:
> 
> 	if (!new_log_buf_len)
> 		return;

The check for cpu_extra > 1 does that -- the default in the patch was 0
and 1 << 0 is 1, so if in the case that the default is used we'd bail
just like before. Or did I perhaps miss what you were saying here?

> Also I would feel more comfortable if we somehow limit the maximum
> size of cpu_extra.

Michal had similar concerns and I thought up to limit it to 1024 max
CPUs, but after my second implementation I did some math on the values
that would be used if say LOG_CPU_BUF_SHIFT was 12, it turns out to not
be *that* bad for even huge num_possible_cpus(). For example for 4096
num_possible_cpus() this comes out to with LOG_BUF_SHIFT of 18:


((1 << 18) + ((4096 - 1) * (1 << 12))) / 1024 = 16636 KB

~16 MB doesn't seem that bad for such a monster box which I'd presume
would have an insane amount of memory. If this logic however does
seems unreasonable and we should cap it -- then by all means lets
pick a sensible number, its just not clear to me what that number
should be. Another reason why I stayed away from capping this was
that we'd then likely end up capping this in the future, and I was
trying to find a solution that would not require mucking as
technology evolves. The reasoning above is also why I had opted to
make the default to 0, only distributions would have a good sense
of what might be reasonable, which I guess begs more for a sysctl
value here.

> I wonder if there might be a crazy setup with a lot
> of possible CPUs and possible memory but with some minimal amount of
> CPUs and memory at the boot time.

When I tested disabling smp I saw the log was still amended to include
information about the disabled CPUs, I however hadn't tested on a machine
with hot pluggable CPUs and with tons of CPUs disabled, so not sure if
that adds more info as well. This also though points more to this being
more a system specific thing, which is another reason to perhaps keep this
disabled and leave this instead as a system config?

> The question is how to do it. I am still not much familiar with the
> memory subsystem. I wonder if 10% of memory defined by the
> "total_rampages" variable would be a reasonable limit.

Not sure either, curious if Mel might have a suggestion?

> 
> >  	if (early) {
> >  		new_log_buf =
> > -- 
> > 2.0.0.rc3.18.g00a5b79
> > 
> 
> >  LocalWords:  buf len cpu boottime

What's this? :)

  Luis

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists