[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16373.1584603506@turing-police>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:38:26 -0400
From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Gabbasov <andrew_gabbasov@...tor.com>,
Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>,
Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] watchdog: Turn console verbosity on when reporting softlockup
On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:48:36 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky said:
> So the issue is that when we bump `console_loglevel' or `ignore_loglevel'
> we lift restrictions globally. For all CPUs, for all contexts which call
> printk(). This may have negative impact. Fuzzing is one example. It
> usually generates a lot of printk() noise, so lifting global printk()
> log_level restrictions does cause problems. I recall that fuzzing people
> really disliked the
> old_level = console_loglevel
> console_loglevel = new_level
> ....
> console_loglevel = old_level
>
> approach. Because if lets all CPUs and tasks to pollute serial logs.
> While what we want is to print messages from a particular CPU/task.
Well... how does this sound for a RFC idea? We already have CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME
and CONFIG_PRINTK_CALLER. How about adding an option to allow printing the
calling CPU as well, or just extend CALLER to print [pid/cpu] rather than just
[pid]?
(And yes, I know that the concept of "this CPU" can change quickly, which is
why per_cpu data may not be accurate for anything more than statistical
aggregation purposes. It's only worth pondering how to deal with that if it's
worth developing the patch at all... :)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists