lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 4/4] printk: allow increasing the ring buffer depending on the number of CPUs
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:32:15 -0700 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 01:16:30 +0200 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > > Another note -- since this option depends on SMP and !BASE_SMALL technically
> >> > > num_possible_cpus() won't ever return something smaller than or equal to 1
> >> > > but because of the default values chosen the -1 on the compuation does affect
> >> > > whether or not this will trigger on > 64 CPUs or >= 64 CPUs, keeping the
> >> > > -1 means we require > 64 CPUs.
> >> >
> >> > hm, that sounds like more complexity.
> >> >
> >> > > This all can be changed however we like but the language and explained logic
> >> > > would just need to be changed.
> >> >
> >> > Let's start out simple. What's wrong with doing
> >> >
> >> > log buf len = max(__LOG_BUF_LEN, nr_possible_cpus * per-cpu log buf len)
> >>
> >> Sure, you already took in the patch series though so how would you like to
> >> handle a respin, you just drop the last patch and we respin it?
> >
> > A fresh patch would suit. That's if you think it is a reasonable
> > approach - you've thought about this stuff more than I have!
>
> The way its implemented now makes more technical sense, in short it
> assumes the first boot (and CPU) gets the full default kernel ring
> buffer size, the extra size is for the gibberish that each extra CPU
> is expected to spew out in the worst case. What you propose makes the
> explanation simpler and easier to understand but sends the wrong
> message about exactly how the growth of the kernel ring buffer is
> expected scale with the addition of more CPUs.

OK, it's finally starting to sink in. The model for the kernel-wide
printk output is "a great pile of CPU-independent stuff plus a certain
amount of per-cpu stuff". And the code at present attempts to follow
that model. Yes?

I'm rather internet-challenged at present - please let me take another look at
the patch on Monday.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-28 02:21    [W:0.138 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site