Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] printk: Fix LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT when BASE_SMALL is enabled

[Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>]

On Mon 2024-02-05 00:29:44, Yoann Congal wrote:
> LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT default value depends on BASE_SMALL:
>   config LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT
>   	default 12 if !BASE_SMALL
>   	default 0 if BASE_SMALL
> But, BASE_SMALL is a config of type int and "!BASE_SMALL" is always
> evaluated to true whatever is the value of BASE_SMALL.
> 
> This patch fixes this by using BASE_FULL (type bool) which is equivalent
> to BASE_SMALL==0.
> 
> Note: This changes CONFIG_LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT=12 to
> CONFIG_LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT=0 for BASE_SMALL defconfigs, but that will
> not be a big impact due to this code in kernel/printk/printk.c:
>   /* by default this will only continue through for large > 64 CPUs */
>   if (cpu_extra <= __LOG_BUF_LEN / 2)
>           return;
> Systems using CONFIG_BASE_SMALL and having 64+ CPUs should be quite
> rare.
> 
> John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> (printk reviewer) wrote:
> > For printk this will mean that BASE_SMALL systems were probably
> > previously allocating/using the dynamic ringbuffer and now they will
> > just continue to use the static ringbuffer. Which is fine and saves
> > memory (as it should).

More precisely, it allocated the buffer dynamically when the sum
of per-CPU-extra space exceeded half of the default static ring
buffer. This happened for systems with more than 64 CPUs with
the default config values.

I believe that this patch won't have any effect in practice.
It is hard to imagine a system with >64 CPUs which would require
BASE_SMALL kernel. Well, never say never ;-)

> Signed-off-by: Yoann Congal <yoann.congal@smile.fr>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMuHMdWm6u1wX7efZQf=2XUAHascps76YQac6rdnQGhc8nop_Q@mail.gmail.com/
> Reported-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/f6856be8-54b7-0fa0-1d17-39632bf29ada@oracle.com/
> Fixes: 4e244c10eab3 ("kconfig: remove unneeded symbol_empty variable")

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

Best Regards,
Petr