lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] printk: inject caller information into the body of message
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:
> On (06/20/18 11:31), Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> > BTW, pr_cont() handling is not so simple when we are in printk_safe()
>> > context. Unlike vprintk_emit() [normal printk], we don't use any
>> > dedicated pr_cont() buffer in printk_safe. So, at a glance, I suspect
>> > that injecting context info at every printk_safe_log_store() call for
>> > `for (...) pr_cont()' loop is going to produce something like this:
>> > I<10> 23 I<10> 43 I<10> 47 ....
>> >
>> > // Hmm, maybe the line will endup having two prefixes. Once
>> > // from printk_safe_log_store, the other from normal printk
>> > // log_store().
>> >
>> > While the same `for (...) pr_cont()' called from normal printk() context
>> > will produce
>> > I<10> 32 43 47 ....
>> >
>> > It could be that I'm wrong.
>> > Tetsuo, have you tested pr_cont() from printk_safe() context?
>>
>>
>> So this is another reason to get rid of pr_cont entirely, right?
>
> Getting rid of pr_cont() from important output would be totally cool.
> Quoting Linus:
>
> Only acceptable use of continuations is basically boot-time testing,
> when you do things like
>
> printk("Testing feature XYZ..");
> this_may_blow_up_because_of_hw_bugs();
> printk(KERN_CONT " ... ok\n");
>
>
> I can recall at least 4 attempts when people tried to introduce new pr_cont()
> or some concept with similar functionality to pr_cont(), but SMP safe. We
> brought the first one - per-CPU pr_cont() buffers - to KS several years ago
> but Linus didn't like it. Then there was a buffered printk() mode patch from
> Tetsuo, then a solution from Steven, then I had my second try with a
> soft-of-pr_cont() replacement.
>
> So, if we could get rid of pr_cont() from the most important parts
> (instruction dumps, etc) then I would just vote to leave pr_cont()
> alone and avoid any handling of it in printk context tracking. Simply
> because we wouldn't care about pr_cont(). This also could simplify
> Tetsuo's patch significantly.

Sounds good to me.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-20 13:33    [W:0.187 / U:0.920 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site