linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] printk: allow increasing the ring buffer depending on the number of CPUs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 2014 03:20:08 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	hpa@...ux.intel.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	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>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] printk: allow increasing the ring buffer
	depending on the number of CPUs

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:59:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:32:15 -0700 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andrew Morton
> > <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 01:16:30 +0200 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > > Another note --  since this option depends on SMP and !BASE_SMALL technically
> > >> > > num_possible_cpus() won't ever return something smaller than or equal to 1
> > >> > > but because of the default values chosen the -1 on the compuation does affect
> > >> > > whether or not this will trigger on > 64 CPUs or >= 64 CPUs, keeping the
> > >> > > -1 means we require > 64 CPUs.
> > >> >
> > >> > hm, that sounds like more complexity.
> > >> >
> > >> > > This all can be changed however we like but the language and explained logic
> > >> > > would just need to be changed.
> > >> >
> > >> > Let's start out simple.  What's wrong with doing
> > >> >
> > >> >     log buf len = max(__LOG_BUF_LEN, nr_possible_cpus * per-cpu log buf len)
> > >>
> > >> Sure, you already took in the patch series though so how would you like to
> > >> handle a respin, you just drop the last patch and we respin it?
> > >
> > > A fresh patch would suit.  That's if you think it is a reasonable
> > > approach - you've thought about this stuff more than I have!
> > 
> > The way its implemented now makes more technical sense, in short it
> > assumes the first boot (and CPU) gets the full default kernel ring
> > buffer size, the extra size is for the gibberish that each extra CPU
> > is expected to spew out in the worst case. What you propose makes the
> > explanation simpler and easier to understand but sends the wrong
> > message about exactly how the growth of the kernel ring buffer is
> > expected scale with the addition of more CPUs.
> 
> OK, it's finally starting to sink in.  The model for the kernel-wide
> printk output is "a great pile of CPU-independent stuff plus a certain
> amount of per-cpu stuff".  And the code at present attempts to follow
> that model.  Yes?

Yup, exactly.

> I'm rather internet-challenged at present - please let me take another look at
> the patch on Monday.

OK!

  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/