From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v3 5/6] printk: introduce console_get_next_message() and console_message
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 16:03:17 +0106 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ilhnd5te.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y7Q2B+p1gxJ1WCdj@alley>
On 2023-01-03, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> On Thu 2022-12-22 16:47:39, John Ogness wrote:
>> On 2022-12-21, John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> > +static bool console_emit_next_record(struct console *con, bool *handover, int cookie)
>> > +{
>> > + bool is_extended = console_srcu_read_flags(con) & CON_EXTENDED;
>> > + static char dropped_text[DROPPED_TEXT_MAX];
>> > + static struct console_buffers cbufs;
>> > + static struct console_message cmsg = {
>> > + .cbufs = &cbufs,
>> > + };
>>
>> @cmsg should not be static. The whole point of the console_message
>> wrapper struct is so that it can sit on the stack.
>
> Well, it might actually be better to keep it static for now.
> It always points to static struct console_buffers cbufs anyway.
>
> It would make sense to have it on stack only when it uses
> different buffers.
I think we should avoid making things static when it serves no purpose.
> Which brings the question. Does it makes sense to use
> the same buffers by different struct console_message?
> Will it be safe in any situation?
>
> I did not want to complicate it yesterday. I think that
> I have already proposed this. But this brings back
> the question whether it makes sense to have two structures
> at all.
>
> I still think that it would be easier and even more safe
> to put everything into struct console_message.
>
> I mean to have:
>
> struct console_message {
> char buf[CONSOLE_EXT_LOG_MAX];
> char scratch_buf[LOG_LINE_MAX];
> unsigned int len;
> u64 seq;
> unsigned long dropped;
> };
The current atomic console proposal allocates 1x cbuf per-cpu and 4x
meta-data per-cpu. Different contexts of a cpu will have different
meta-data, but all the contexts of a cpu will share the same cbuf.
If cbufs become embedded in cmsg, then we would allocate 1x cmsg
per-cpu. But the atomic consoles would still need their own 4x per-cpu
meta-data.
When looking at the proposal code, it looks wrong to have meta-data
fields in the cmsg struct that are not being used. But maybe that is
acceptable during the "transition phase" until all legacy consoles are
gone.
For v4 I will drop the console_buffers struct. I will use your
suggestion.
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-03 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-21 20:26 [PATCH printk v3 0/6] printk: cleanup buffer handling John Ogness
2022-12-21 20:26 ` [PATCH printk v3 1/6] printk: move size limit macros into internal.h John Ogness
2023-01-02 14:06 ` Petr Mladek
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 2/6] console: Use BIT() macros for @flags values John Ogness
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 3/6] console: Document struct console John Ogness
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 4/6] printk: introduce struct console_buffers John Ogness
2023-01-02 15:15 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 10:04 ` John Ogness
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 5/6] printk: introduce console_get_next_message() and console_message John Ogness
2022-12-22 15:41 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 14:04 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 14:57 ` John Ogness [this message]
2023-01-03 15:55 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-04 10:26 ` John Ogness
2023-01-04 10:42 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-02 15:52 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 15:41 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 10:02 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 14:05 ` Petr Mladek
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 6/6] printk: introduce console_prepend_dropped() for dropped messages John Ogness
2023-01-02 16:19 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 10:20 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 13:29 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 13:44 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 14:16 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 15:00 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 16:13 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-04 9:06 ` John Ogness
2023-01-04 10:33 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-05 13:14 ` kernel test robot
2023-01-05 13:55 ` John Ogness
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ilhnd5te.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de \
--to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.