linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread

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

Date:   Sun, 2 Jul 2017 22:27:33 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread

On Mon 2017-07-03 20:11:30, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (06/30/17 22:38), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (06/30/17 15:16), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > Anyway, the handshake during offloading might be pretty
> > > problematic. To be honest, I do not have much experience
> > > with it. I have shared some my fears in the other mail[1].
> > > Jan Kara spent a lot of time on this and probably could
> > > say more.
> > > 
> > > Maybe, we could try to look into the throotling path. Slowing down
> > > massive printk() callers looks necessary when things gets
> > > out of control.
> > 
> > throttling, in some form, is already there. I think.
> > 
> > there is a printk_delay() function. which we can silently activate
> > when things don't look cool anymore. and printk_delay() is already
> > getting called on every vprintk_emit() entry. the question is -- how
> > big should be our delay value, and... when do we need to activate
> > printk_delay()?
> > 
> > when the distance between console_seq and log_next_seq... suggests
> > that we will drop (overwrite) un-flushed messages sooner than console_seq
> > reaches log_next_seq? so log_next_seq is closer to log_first_seq than
> > console_seq to log_next_seq.
> 
> something like below, may be. a sketch, just to demonstrate the
> idea. but, once polished, can go to printk out of series.
> 
> ===8<===8<===8<===
> 
> Throttle printk() callers when we detect that consoles are
> far behind the logbuf: we printed to the consoles 4 times
> less messages than we still have to print.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
> ---
>  kernel/printk/printk.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index f24d3789faa0..fd546bd95207 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -1758,17 +1758,43 @@ static void call_console_drivers(const char *ext_text, size_t ext_len,
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +#define PRINTK_FLOOD_DEFAULT_DELAY	10
> +
>  int printk_delay_msec __read_mostly;

= 10;

> +	if (console_seen < 4 * console_to_see) {
> +		if (printk_delay_msec)
> +			__printk_delay(printk_delay_msec);
> +		else
> +			__printk_delay(PRINTK_FLOOD_DEFAULT_DELAY);

And get rid of if () here? We want to enable delays of 0...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html