All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..."
	<linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Threaded printk breaks early debugging
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 10:36:04 +0206	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wndlge43.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yqazr060OLp2Rpbk@google.com>

On 2022-06-13, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > Should a situation when we have only one online CPU be enough of a
>> > reason to do direct printing? Otherwise we might not have CPUs to
>> > wakeup khtread on, e.g. when CPU that printk is in atomic section for
>> > too long.
>> 
>> IMHO, no. Especially in that situation, we do not want printk causing
>> that atomic section to become even longer. If the machine has entered
>> normal operation, we want printk out of the way.
>
> At the same time printk throttles itself in such cases: new messages are
> not added at much higher pace that they are printed at. So we lower the
> chances of missing messages.

That is true if there is only 1 printk caller. For SMP systems with
printing handovers, it might not help at all. I firmly believe that
sprinkling randomness into printk (i.e. system) latencies is not the
answer. We need to keep printk lockless and out of the system's way
unless there is a real emergency happening.

This particular thread is not about missed messages due to printk not
"throttling the system", but rather the kernel buffers not getting
flushed in an emergency. This, of course, needs to be properly handled.

John Ogness

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..."
	<linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Threaded printk breaks early debugging
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 10:36:04 +0206	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wndlge43.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yqazr060OLp2Rpbk@google.com>

On 2022-06-13, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > Should a situation when we have only one online CPU be enough of a
>> > reason to do direct printing? Otherwise we might not have CPUs to
>> > wakeup khtread on, e.g. when CPU that printk is in atomic section for
>> > too long.
>> 
>> IMHO, no. Especially in that situation, we do not want printk causing
>> that atomic section to become even longer. If the machine has entered
>> normal operation, we want printk out of the way.
>
> At the same time printk throttles itself in such cases: new messages are
> not added at much higher pace that they are printed at. So we lower the
> chances of missing messages.

That is true if there is only 1 printk caller. For SMP systems with
printing handovers, it might not help at all. I firmly believe that
sprinkling randomness into printk (i.e. system) latencies is not the
answer. We need to keep printk lockless and out of the system's way
unless there is a real emergency happening.

This particular thread is not about missed messages due to printk not
"throttling the system", but rather the kernel buffers not getting
flushed in an emergency. This, of course, needs to be properly handled.

John Ogness

  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-13  8:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-10 12:48 [BUG] Threaded printk breaks early debugging Peter Geis
2022-06-10 12:48 ` Peter Geis
2022-06-10 15:05 ` John Ogness
2022-06-10 15:05   ` John Ogness
2022-06-10 15:34   ` Peter Geis
2022-06-10 15:34     ` Peter Geis
2022-06-12  2:57     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-06-12  2:57       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-06-12 13:30       ` Peter Geis
2022-06-12 13:30         ` Peter Geis
2022-06-12 23:08     ` John Ogness
2022-06-12 23:08       ` John Ogness
2022-06-12 23:30       ` Peter Geis
2022-06-12 23:30         ` Peter Geis
2022-06-13  2:23         ` John Ogness
2022-06-13  2:23           ` John Ogness
2022-06-13 15:11           ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-13 15:11             ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-13 22:20             ` Peter Geis
2022-06-13 22:20               ` Peter Geis
2022-06-14  8:38               ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-14  8:38                 ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-13 11:24         ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-13 11:24           ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-12  3:13   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-06-12  3:13     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-06-12 23:02     ` John Ogness
2022-06-12 23:02       ` John Ogness
2022-06-13  3:49       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-06-13  3:49         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-06-13  8:30         ` John Ogness [this message]
2022-06-13  8:30           ` John Ogness
2022-06-13  9:05           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-06-13  9:05             ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2022-06-13 10:14             ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-13 10:14               ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-13 16:11               ` David Laight
2022-06-13 16:11                 ` David Laight
2022-06-14  8:37                 ` Petr Mladek
2022-06-14  8:37                   ` Petr Mladek

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=87wndlge43.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de \
    --to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=pgwipeout@gmail.com \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
    /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.