Re: [PATCH] panic.c: export panic_on_oops

David Woodhouse
2009-10-12T12:33:18Z

On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 14:20 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 14:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Also, would it be possible to just simplify the thing and not do any
> > > buffering at all? Extra buffering complexity in a console driver is only
> > > asking for trouble. Or is flash storage write cycles optimization that
> > > important in this case?
> >
> > That and the fact that on NAND flash you have to write full pages at a
> > time -- that's 512 bytes, 2KiB or 4KiB depending on the type of chip.
> > So we really do want to buffer it where we can.
> >
> > We don't want to write a 2KiB page for every line of printk output.
>
> Then i think the buffering is at the wrong place: we should instead
> buffer in the generic layer and pass it to lowlevel if we know that we
> have gone past a 2K boundary.
>
> The size of the generic log buffer is always a power of two so detecting
> 2K boundaries is very easy. On any emergency the generic console layer
> will do faster flushes - this is nothing the console driver itself
> should bother with.
>
> And that would avoid the whole workqueue logic - which is fragile to be
> done in a printk to begin with.
>
> So what we need is an extension to struct console that sets a buffering
> limit. Zero (the default) means unbuffered.
>
> (Btw., things like netconsole might make use of such buffering too.)
>
> Agreed?

Makes some sense, yes.

We also use the workqueue logic to allow us to co-ordinate access to the
hardware properly -- taking locks where appropriate, etc. We can't do
that directly from a console ->write() method.

Some device drivers do provide a ->panic_write() function which breaks
all the locks and just resets the hardware because it knows we're
panicking, but we don't want to do that in the common case.

--
dwmw2