[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190304052335.GA6648@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:23:35 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Wang <wonderfly@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/25] printk: new implementation
On (02/13/19 15:43), John Ogness wrote:
> On 2019-02-13, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> wrote:
> >> - A dedicated kernel thread is created for printing to all consoles in
> >> a fully preemptible context.
> >
> > How do you handle sysrq-<foo> printouts on systems which can't
> > schedule printk-kthread?
>
> If those sysrq printouts are at the emergency loglevel (which most are),
> then they are printed immediately to the emergency consoles. This has
> already proved useful for our own kernel debugging work. For example,
> currently sysrq-z for very large traces result in messages being dropped
> because of printk buffer overflows. But with the emergency console we
> always see the full trace buffer.
Are we sure that all systems will always have ->atomic console(-s)
enabled? Is it possible to convert all console drivers to ->atomic?
fbcon, for instance (with scrolling and font scaling, etc)? If there
are setups which can be fully !atomic (in terms of console output)
then we, essentially, have a fully preemptible kthread printk
implementation.
> Because you have already done so much work and experimentation with
> printk-kthreads, I feel like many of your comments are related to your
> kthread work in this area. Really the big design change I make with my
> printk-kthread is that it is only for non-critical messages. For
> anything critical, users should rely on an emergency console.
Fair point. Well maybe my printk-kthread comments are not utterly
unreasonable, but who knows :)
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists