[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150220081003.GA20216@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:10:03 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Adrien Schildknecht <adrien+dev@...ischi.me>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, heukelum@...tmail.fm,
luto@...capital.net, adech.fo@...il.com,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
a.ryabinin@...sung.com, fruggeri@...sta.com, bp@...en8.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix output of show_stack_log_lvl()
* Adrien Schildknecht <adrien+dev@...ischi.me> wrote:
> show_stack_log_lvl() does not set the log level after a new line,
> the following messages printed with pr_cont are thus assigned to the
> default log level.
> This patch prepends the log level to the next message following a new
> line.
>
> print_trace_address() uses printk(log_lvl). Using printk with just
> a log level is ignored and thus has no effect on the next pr_cont.
> We need to prepend the log level directly into the message.
This approach looks good to me, we want to print multi-line
messages with the same consistent loglevel.
Totally unrelated observation:
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
> touch_nmi_watchdog();
> + printk_stack_address(addr, reliable, data);
The whole code is sprinkled with touch_nmi_watchdog()
calls. Shouldn't we simply make it a rule that if a printk
message makes it to a real console (as opposed to the log
buffer only), it should imply a touch_nmi_watchdog()?
Then all of those crappy touch_nmi_watchdog() calls could
be removed here and in other places where long printk
streams may happen.
Totally unrelated observation #2:
> if (kstack_end(stack))
> break;
> - if (i && ((i % STACKSLOTS_PER_LINE) == 0))
> - pr_cont("\n");
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c
> if (((long) stack & (THREAD_SIZE-1)) == 0)
> break;
> }
> - if (i && ((i % STACKSLOTS_PER_LINE) == 0))
> - pr_cont("\n");
Looks like kstack_end() could be defined on 64-bit as well,
unifying the stack printing logic some more?
( I'd no go so far as to unify the two functions, but the
closer to each other the better it is to make changes
that affect both of them. )
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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