[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181106143502.GA32748@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 23:35:02 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] printk: Add line-buffered printk() API.
On (11/02/18 22:31), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> (1) Call get_printk_buffer() and acquire "struct printk_buffer *".
>
> (2) Rewrite printk() calls in the following way. The "ptr" is
> "struct printk_buffer *" obtained in step (1).
>
> printk(fmt, ...) => printk_buffered(ptr, fmt, ...)
> vprintk(fmt, args) => vprintk_buffered(ptr, fmt, args)
> pr_emerg(fmt, ...) => bpr_emerg(ptr, fmt, ...)
> pr_alert(fmt, ...) => bpr_alert(ptr, fmt, ...)
> pr_crit(fmt, ...) => bpr_crit(ptr, fmt, ...)
> pr_err(fmt, ...) => bpr_err(ptr, fmt, ...)
> pr_warning(fmt, ...) => bpr_warning(ptr, fmt, ...)
> pr_warn(fmt, ...) => bpr_warn(ptr, fmt, ...)
> pr_notice(fmt, ...) => bpr_notice(ptr, fmt, ...)
> pr_info(fmt, ...) => bpr_info(ptr, fmt, ...)
> pr_cont(fmt, ...) => bpr_cont(ptr, fmt, ...)
>
> (3) Release "struct printk_buffer" by calling put_printk_buffer().
[..]
> Since we want to remove "struct cont" eventually, we will try to remove
> both "implicit printk() users who are expecting KERN_CONT behavior" and
> "explicit pr_cont()/printk(KERN_CONT) users". Therefore, converting to
> this API is recommended.
- The printk-fallback sounds like a hint that the existing 'cont' handling
better stay in the kernel. I don't see how the existing 'cont' is
significantly worse than
bpr_warn(NULL, ...)->printk() // no 'cont' support
I don't see why would we want to do it, sorry. I don't see "it takes 16
printk-buffers to make a thing go right" as a sure thing.
A question.
How bad would it actually be to:
- Allocate seq_buf 512-bytes buffer (GFP_ATOMIC) just-in-time, when we
need it.
// How often systems cannot allocate a 512-byte buffer? //
- OK, assuming that systems around the world are so badly OOM like all the
time and even kmalloc(512) is absolutely impossible, then have a fallback
to the existing 'cont' handling; it just looks to me better than a plain
printk()-fallback with removed 'cont' support.
- Do not allocate seq_buf if we are in printk-safe or in printk-nmi mode.
To avoid "buffering for the sake of buffering". IOW, when in printk-safe
use printk-safe.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists