[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o8ln1w2e.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:03:13 +0206
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk 3/5] printk: use buffer pool for sprint buffers
On 2020-09-30, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
>> Doubling the cost of every single printk by unconditionally doing
>> vsnprintf() twice is a bad idea.
>
> I would prefer to solve this when there are real life problems.
> printk() should not get called in performance sensitive paths in
> the first place.
>
> We could always make the code more complicated when it can be
> justified. Extra buffers is yet another layer (code and memory)
> in the processing. And the current arguments sounds theoretical.
I am preparing a v2 that avoids the memory pool.
John Ogness
Powered by blists - more mailing lists