lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v1 10/25] printk: redirect emit/store to new ringbuffer
On Fri 2019-02-22 16:06:26, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2019-02-22, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>> + 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.
> >
> > I am not sure it is worth to call the ring buffer machinery just
> > to handle 2-3 buffers.
>
> It may be slightly overkill, but:
>
> 1. We have the prb_cpulock at this point anyway, so it will be
> fast. (Both ring buffers share the same prb_cpulock.)

I am still not persuaded that we really need the lock. The
implementation looks almost ready for a fully lockless
writers. But I might be wrong.

The lock might be fine when it makes the code easier and does
not bring any deadlocks.


> 2. Getting a safe buffer is just 1 line of code: prb_reserve()

The problem is how complicated code is hidden behind
this 1 line of code.


> 3. Why should we waste _any_ lines of code implementing the handling of
> these special 3-4 buffers?

It might be worth if it makes the code more strighforward
and less prone to bugs.


> > Well, it might be just my mental block. We need to be really careful
> > to avoid infinite recursion when storing messages into the log
> > buffer.
>
> The recursion works well. I inserted a triggerable BUG_ON() in
> vprintk_emit() _within_ the reserve/commit window and I see a clean
> backtrace on the emergency console.

Have you tested all possible error situations that might happen?
Testing helps a lot. But the real life often brings surprises.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-22 16:27    [W:0.126 / U:25.956 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site