Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:12:00 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	Petr Mládek <pmladek@...e.cz>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <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>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] printk: allow increasing the ring buffer depending on the
 number of CPUs

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 11:34 +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
>> On Tue 2014-06-10 18:04:45, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
>> >
>> > The default size of the ring buffer is too small for machines
>> > with a large amount of CPUs under heavy load. What ends up
>> > happening when debugging is the ring buffer overlaps and chews
>> > up old messages making debugging impossible unless the size is
>> > passed as a kernel parameter. An idle system upon boot up will
>> > on average spew out only about one or two extra lines but where
>> > this really matters is on heavy load and that will vary widely
>> > depending on the system and environment.
>>
>> Thanks for looking at this. It is a pity to lose stracktrace when a huge
>> machine Oopses just because the default ring buffer is too small.
>
> Agreed, I would very much welcome something like this.

Great!

>> > There are mechanisms to help increase the kernel ring buffer
>> > for tracing through debugfs, and those interfaces even allow growing
>> > the kernel ring buffer per CPU. We also have a static value which
>> > can be passed upon boot. Relying on debugfs however is not ideal
>> > for production, and relying on the value passed upon bootup is
>> > can only used *after* an issue has creeped up. Instead of being
>> > reactive this adds a proactive measure which lets you scale the
>> > amount of contributions you'd expect to the kernel ring buffer
>> > under load by each CPU in the worst case scenerio.
>> >
>> > We use num_possible_cpus() to avoid complexities which could be
>> > introduced by dynamically changing the ring buffer size at run
>> > time, num_possible_cpus() lets us use the upper limit on possible
>> > number of CPUs therefore avoiding having to deal with hotplugging
>> > CPUs on and off. This option is diabled by default, and if used
>> > the kernel ring buffer size then can be computed as follows:
>> >
>> > size = __LOG_BUF_LEN + (num_possible_cpus() - 1 ) *  __LOG_CPU_BUF_LEN
>> >
>> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
>> > Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
>> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> > Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
>> > Cc: Arun KS <arunks.linux@...il.com>
>> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...e.com>
>> > ---
>> >  init/Kconfig           | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  kernel/printk/printk.c |  6 ++++--
>> >  2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> It should also depend on SMP and !BASE_SMALL.
> I was wondering about disabling this by default as it would defeat the
> purpose of being a proactive feature. Similarly, I worry about distros
> choosing a correct default value on their own.

True, it seems Petr's recommendations would address these concerns for
systems under a certain amount of limit of number of CPUs, as is right
now we require the contribution by CPU in worst case scenario to be >
1/2 of the default kernel ring buffer size that's > 64 number of CPUs.

>> > +     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.
>
> ... and update Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt to be more
> descriptive about this new functionality.

Will do!

>> > +     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
>>
>
> Agreed.

Amended.

>> >  #
>> >  # Architectures with an unreliable sched_clock() should select this:
>> >  #
>> > 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 depending on SMP, you can remove the - 1 here.

Great point, however it still does have an implication of the minimum
amount of CPUs that will trigger an increase with the heuristics
suggested by Petr, with the -1 we'd require > 64 CPUs, without it 64
CPUs would trigger an increase. We need to decide on this, I will add
the Kconfig requirement suggestions though.

>> > -   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;
>
> Yep.

Fixed, thanks.

>> Also I would feel more comfortable if we somehow limit the maximum
>> size of cpu_extra. 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.
>
> Maybe. But considering that systems with a lot of CPUs *do* have a lot
> of memory, I wouldn't worry much about this, just like we don't worry
> about it now. Considering a _large_ 1024 core system and using the max
> value 21 for CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT, we would only allocate just over 2Gb
> of extra space -- trivial for such a system. And if it does break
> something, then heck, go fix you box and/or just reduce the percpu
> value. I guess that's a good reason to keep the default to 0 and let
> users play with it as they wish without compromising uninterested
> parties. afaict only x86 would be exposed to systems not booting if we
> fail to allocate.

Picking hard limit values is certainly subjective but if we can pick
some heuristic that can scale without revisiting this much it'd be
great, I think Petr's new suggestion of having the contribution be
more than the default kernel ring buffer could help mitigate most
issues on smaller systems, a default of 12 (4KB contribution per CPU)
is also reasonably small I think based on the computations I've made
even for crazy large beasts.

 Luis
--
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