[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1402695712.27369.10.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:41:52 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc: hpa@...ux.intel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Arun KS <arunks.linux@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: allow increasing the ring buffer depending
on the number of CPUs
On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 11:28 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> + /*
> + * If you set log_buf_len=n kernel parameter LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_SHIFT will
> + * be ignored. LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_SHIFT is a proactive measure for large
> + * systems. With a LOG_BUF_SHIFT of 18 and LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_SHIFT 12 at
> + * we'd require more than 64 CPUs to trigger an increase from the
> + * default.
> + */
> + if (!new_log_buf_len && (cpu_extra > __LOG_BUF_LEN / 2))
^ that ! looks wrong. We should be checking for log_buf_len set instead.
> + new_log_buf_len = __LOG_BUF_LEN + cpu_extra;
You could also move the whole thing below the return statement, that way
we can avoid double checking new_log_buf_len. Otherwise looks kinda
weird.
>
> if (!new_log_buf_len)
> return;
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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