[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171219024610.GC17164@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:46:10 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv6 00/12] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
On (12/18/17 21:03), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > and this is exactly what I'm still observing. i_do_printks-1992 stops
> > printing, while console_sem is owned by another task. Since log_store()
> > much faster than call_console_drivers() AND console_sem owner is getting
> > preempted for unknown period of time, we end up having pending messages
> > in logbuf... and it's kworker/0:1-135 that prints them all.
> >
> > systemd-udevd-671 [003] d..3 66.334866: offloading: set console_owner
> > kworker/0:1-135 [000] d..2 66.335999: offloading: vprintk_emit()->trylock FAIL will spin? :1
> > i_do_printks-1992 [002] d..2 66.345474: offloading: vprintk_emit()->trylock FAIL will spin? :0 x 1100
> > ...
> > systemd-udevd-671 [003] d..3 66.345917: offloading: clear console_owner waiter != NULL :1
>
> And kworker will still be bounded in what it can print. Yes it may end
> up being the entire buffer, but that should not take longer than a
> watchdog.
not the case on my setup. "1100 messages" is already longer than watchdog.
consoles don't scale. if anyone's console can keep up with 2 printing CPUs,
then let's see what logbuf size that person will set on a system with 1024
CPUs under OOM. I doubt that will be 128KB.
anyway,
before you guys push the patch to printk.git, can we wait for Tejun to
run his tests against it? (or do we have a preemptive "non realistic
tests" conclusion?)
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists