Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Use line-buffered printk() for lockdep messages.

[Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>]

On (11/08/18 20:37), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/11/08 13:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > So, can we just do the following? /* a sketch */
> > 
> > lockdep.c
> > 	printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
> > 	lockdep_report();
> > 	printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
> 
> If buffer size were large enough to hold messages from out_of_memory(),
> I would like to use it for out_of_memory() because delaying SIGKILL
> due to waiting for printk() to complete is not good. Surely we can't
> hold all messages because amount from dump_tasks() is unpredictable.
> Maybe we can hold all messages from dump_header() except dump_tasks().
> 
> But isn't it essentially same with
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1493560477-3016-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
> which Linus does not want?

Dunno. I guess we still haven't heard from Linus because he did quite a good
job setting up his 'email filters' ;)

Converting the existing users to buffered printk is not so simple.
Apparently there are different paths; some can afford buffered printk, some
cannot. Some of 'cont' users tend to get advantage of transparent 'cont'
context: start 'cont' output in function A: A()->pr_cont(), continue it in
B: A()->B()->pr_cont(), and then in C: A()->B()->C()->pr_cont(), and
finally flush in A: A()->pr_cont(\n). And then some paths have the
early_printk requirement. We can break the 'transparent cont' by passing
buffer pointers around [it can get a bit hairy; looking at lockdep patch],
but early_printk requirement is a different beast.

So in my email I was not advertising printk_safe as a "buffered printk for
everyone", I was just talking about lockdep. It's a bit doubtful that Peter
will ACK lockdep transition to buffered printk.

	-ss