From: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 3/6] s390x: Add linemode buffer to fix newline on every print
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:31:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b2730c42-27a7-1fff-0687-98b587516481@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43bb9ff6-4233-3f6f-8cdb-3a00d1662d4d@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4552 bytes --]
On 9/20/19 10:24 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.09.19 10:03, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Linemode seems to add a newline for each sent message which makes
>> reading rather hard. Hence we add a small buffer and only print if
>> it's full or a newline is encountered. Except for when the string is
>> longer than the buffer, then we flush the buffer and print directly.
>
> I think that last sentence is not correct anymore.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> lib/s390x/sclp-console.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp-console.c b/lib/s390x/sclp-console.c
>> index 19416b5..e1b9000 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/sclp-console.c
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp-console.c
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>> #include <asm/page.h>
>> #include <asm/arch_def.h>
>> #include <asm/io.h>
>> +#include <asm/spinlock.h>
>> #include "sclp.h"
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -87,6 +88,10 @@ static uint8_t _ascebc[256] = {
>> 0x90, 0x3F, 0x3F, 0x3F, 0x3F, 0xEA, 0x3F, 0xFF
>> };
>>
>> +static char lm_buff[120];
>> +static unsigned char lm_buff_off;
>> +static struct spinlock lm_buff_lock;
>> +
>> static void sclp_print_ascii(const char *str)
>> {
>> int len = strlen(str);
>> @@ -103,10 +108,10 @@ static void sclp_print_ascii(const char *str)
>> sclp_service_call(SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_DATA, sccb);
>> }
>>
>> -static void sclp_print_lm(const char *str)
>> +static void lm_print(const char *buff, int len)
>> {
>> unsigned char *ptr, *end, ch;
>> - unsigned int count, offset, len;
>> + unsigned int count, offset;
>> struct WriteEventData *sccb;
>> struct mdb *mdb;
>> struct mto *mto;
>> @@ -117,11 +122,10 @@ static void sclp_print_lm(const char *str)
>> end = (unsigned char *) sccb + 4096 - 1;
>> memset(sccb, 0, sizeof(*sccb));
>> ptr = (unsigned char *) &sccb->msg.mdb.mto;
>> - len = strlen(str);
>> offset = 0;
>> do {
>> for (count = sizeof(*mto); offset < len; count++) {
>> - ch = str[offset++];
>> + ch = buff[offset++];
>> if (ch == 0x0a || ptr + count > end)
>> break;
>> ptr[count] = _ascebc[ch];
>> @@ -148,6 +152,39 @@ static void sclp_print_lm(const char *str)
>> sclp_service_call(SCLP_CMD_WRITE_EVENT_DATA, sccb);
>> }
>>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * In contrast to the ascii console, linemode produces a new
>> + * line with every write of data. The report() function uses
>> + * several printf() calls to generate a line of data which
>> + * would all end up on different lines.
>> + *
>> + * Hence we buffer here until we encounter a \n or the buffer
>> + * is full. That means that linemode output can look a bit
>> + * different from ascii and that it takes a bit longer for
>> + * lines to appear.
>> + */
>> +static void sclp_print_lm(const char *str)
>> +{
>> + int len = strlen(str), i = 0;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&lm_buff_lock);
>> +
>> + while (len) {
>
> for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
>
> Then make len const and drop "len--" and "i++" from the body.
Sure, the loop was a first draft anyway.
I'm asking myself how I ended up writing something so complicated in the
first place :-)
>
>> + lm_buff[lm_buff_off] = str[i];
>> + lm_buff_off++;
>
> lm_buff[lm_buff_off++] = str[i];
>
> if you feel like saving one LOC :)
>
>> + len--;
>> + /* Buffer full or newline? */
>> + if (str[i] == '\n' || lm_buff_off == (sizeof(lm_buff) - 1)) {
>
> I still prefer ARRAY_SIZE(), but this is also fine.
>
>> + lm_print(lm_buff, lm_buff_off);
>> + memset(lm_buff, 0 , sizeof(lm_buff));
>
> Is the memset really necessary? (I would have assumed it would only
> print until the last "\n" ?)
It's not, I just like clearing things
>
>> + lm_buff_off = 0;
>> + }
>> + i++;
>> + }
>
> Guess we don't care about performance, so the simple byte-based approach
> should be just fine.
;-)
>
>> + spin_unlock(&lm_buff_lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * SCLP needs to be initialized by setting a send and receive mask,
>> * indicating which messages the control program (we) want(s) to
>>
>
>
> I wonder if we have to implement some kind of fflush(), so we will flush
> the buffer on any abort ... but I assume we will always end printing
> with a "\n", so we don't really care.
I haven't encountered incomplete output up to now.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-20 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-20 8:03 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 0/6] s390x: Add multiboot and smp Janosch Frank
2019-09-20 8:03 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 1/6] s390x: Use interrupts in SCLP and add locking Janosch Frank
2019-09-20 8:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-20 8:03 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 2/6] s390x: Add linemode console Janosch Frank
2019-09-20 8:03 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 3/6] s390x: Add linemode buffer to fix newline on every print Janosch Frank
2019-09-20 8:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-20 8:31 ` Janosch Frank [this message]
2019-09-20 11:23 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] " Janosch Frank
2019-09-20 8:03 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 4/6] s390x: Add initial smp code Janosch Frank
2019-09-23 10:43 ` Thomas Huth
2019-09-23 14:15 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] " Janosch Frank
2019-09-24 16:06 ` Thomas Huth
2019-09-20 8:03 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 5/6] s390x: Prepare for external calls Janosch Frank
2019-09-25 8:50 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-20 8:03 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 6/6] s390x: SMP test Janosch Frank
2019-09-25 8:49 ` Thomas Huth
2019-09-25 10:26 ` Janosch Frank
2019-09-25 9:03 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-25 10:24 ` Janosch Frank
2019-09-25 13:27 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-25 13:30 ` Thomas Huth
2019-09-25 13:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-25 13:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-25 13:39 ` David Hildenbrand
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=b2730c42-27a7-1fff-0687-98b587516481@linux.ibm.com \
--to=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox