linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk: replace ringbuffer

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]

Message-ID: <990f0076-7df2-c956-6181-fd222c1023f6@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:12:14 +0800
From:   lijiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk: replace ringbuffer

> On 2020-02-05, lijiang <lijiang@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Do you have any suggestions about the size of CONFIG_LOG_* and
>> CONFIG_PRINTK_* options by default?
> 
> The new printk implementation consumes more than double the memory that
> the current printk implementation requires. This is because dictionaries
> and meta-data are now stored separately.
> 
> If the old defaults (LOG_BUF_SHIFT=17 LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT=12) were
> chosen because they are maximally acceptable defaults, then the defaults
> should be reduced by 1 so that the final size is "similar" to the
> current implementation.
> 
> If instead the defaults are left as-is, a machine with less than 64 CPUs
> will reserve 336KiB for printk information (128KiB text, 128KiB
> dictionary, 80KiB meta-data).
> 
> It might also be desirable to reduce the dictionary size (maybe 1/4 the
> size of text?). However, since the new printk implementation allows for
> non-intrusive dictionaries, we might see their usage increase and start
> to be as large as the messages themselves.
> 
> John Ogness
> 

Thanks for the explanation in detail.

Lianbo