[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170705163603.GA488@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:36:03 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
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
Hello,
On (07/02/17 22:27), Pavel Machek wrote:
[..]
> > +#define PRINTK_FLOOD_DEFAULT_DELAY 10
> > +
> > int printk_delay_msec __read_mostly;
>
> = 10;
the idea is to throttle printk() only (and as long as) when we see
that something is not right. like when we added 4 (a random number)
times more messages that we were able to print so far. printk_delay_msec
would throttle all printk calls. there is a difference.
there are some cases that are sort of broken with this automatic
throttling. the simples one is printk() under console_lock().
the harder one is throttling printk() from IRQ context. that
can be risky, in theory. may be I'm overcomplicating here; if
the system has hard locked up due to printk throttling from IRQ,
then probably it was going to lockup anyway.
need to check sysrq-t case, tho.
> > + 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...
this if () is totally useless and stupid, yes. realized after I sent
the mail.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists