lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v1 10/25] printk: redirect emit/store to new ringbuffer
Date
On 2019-02-20, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>> vprintk_emit and vprintk_store are the main functions that all printk
>> variants eventually go through. Change these to store the message in
>> the new printk ring buffer that the printk kthread is reading.
>
> We need to switch the two buffers in a single commit
> without disabling important functionality.
>
> By other words, we need to change vprintk_emit(), vprintk_store(),
> console_unlock(), syslog(), devkmsg(), and syslog in one patch.

Agreed. But for the review process I expect it makes things much easier
to change them one at a time. Patch-squashing is not a problem once all
the individuals have been ack'd.

>> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> index 5a5a685bb128..b6a6f1002741 100644
>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> @@ -584,54 +500,36 @@ static int log_store(int facility, int level,
>> const char *text, u16 text_len)
>
>> memcpy(log_dict(msg), dict, dict_len);
>> msg->dict_len = dict_len;
>> msg->facility = facility;
>> msg->level = level & 7;
>> msg->flags = flags & 0x1f;
>
> The existing struct printk_log is stored into the data field
> of struct prb_entry. It is because printk_ring_buffer is supposed
> to be a generic ring buffer.

Yes.

> It makes the code more complicated. Also it needs more space for
> the size and seq items from struct prb_entry.
>
> printk() is already very complicated code. We should not make
> it unnecessarily worse.

In my opinion it makes things considerably easier. My experience with
printk-code is that it is so complicated because it is mixing
printk-features with ring buffer handling code. By providing a strict
API (and hiding the details) of the ring buffer, the implementation of
the printk-features became pretty straight forward.

Now I will admit that the ring buffer API I proposed is not easy to
digest. Mostly because I leave a lot of work up to the readers and have
lots of arguments. Your proposed changes of passing a struct and moving
loops under the ring buffer API should provide some major
simplification.

> Please, are there any candidates or plans to reuse the new ring
> buffer implementation?

As you pointed out below, this patch already uses the ring buffer
implementation for a totally different purpose: NMI safe dynamic memory
allocation.

> For example, would it be usable for ftrace? Steven?
>
> If not, I would prefer to make it printk-specific
> and hopefully simplify the code a bit.
>
>
>> - if (ts_nsec > 0)
>> - msg->ts_nsec = ts_nsec;
>> - else
>> - msg->ts_nsec = local_clock();
>> - memset(log_dict(msg) + dict_len, 0, pad_len);
>> + msg->ts_nsec = ts_nsec;
>> msg->len = size;
>>
>> /* insert message */
>> - log_next_idx += msg->len;
>> - log_next_seq++;
>> + prb_commit(&h);
>>
>> return msg->text_len;
>> }
>
> [...]
>
>> int vprintk_store(int facility, int level,
>> const char *dict, size_t dictlen,
>> const char *fmt, va_list args)
>> {
>> - static char textbuf[LOG_LINE_MAX];
>> - char *text = textbuf;
>> - size_t text_len;
>> + return vprintk_emit(facility, level, dict, dictlen, fmt, args);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* ring buffer used as memory allocator for temporary sprint buffers */
>> +DECLARE_STATIC_PRINTKRB(sprint_rb,
>> + ilog2(PRINTK_RECORD_MAX + sizeof(struct prb_entry) +
>> + sizeof(long)) + 2, &printk_cpulock);
>> +
>> +asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>> + const char *dict, size_t dictlen,
>> + const char *fmt, va_list args)
>
> [...]
>
>> + rbuf = prb_reserve(&h, &sprint_rb, PRINTK_SPRINT_MAX);
>
> The second ring buffer for temporary buffers is really interesting
> idea.
>
> Well, it brings some questions. For example, how many users might
> need a reservation in parallel. Or if the nested use might cause
> some problems when we decide to use printk-specific ring buffer
> implementation. I still have to think about it.

Keep in mind that it is only used by the writers, which have the
prb_cpulock. Typically there would only be 2 max users: a non-NMI writer
that was interrupted during the reserve/commit window and the
interrupting NMI that does printk. The only exception would be if the
printk-code code itself triggers a BUG_ON or WARN_ON within the
reserve/commit window. Then you will have an additional user per
recursion level.

John Ogness

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-20 22:26    [W:0.155 / U:18.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site