From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753369AbcLMBwd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 12 Dec 2016 20:52:33 -0500
Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:36024 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752999AbcLMBwb (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 12 Dec 2016 20:52:31 -0500
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:52:37 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv5 5/7] printk: report lost messages in printk
 safe/nmi contexts
Message-ID: <20161213015237.GE415@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20161201135546.15549-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20161201135546.15549-6-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20161212155810.GD2441@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161212155810.GD2441@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (12/12/16 16:58), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-12-01 22:55:44, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> But not really because we report lost messages from both buffers
> and from all CPUs here.
[..]
> The perfect solution would be to remember the number of lost messages
> in struct printk_safe_seq_buf. Then we might bump the value directly
> in printk_safe_log_store() instead of returning the ugly -ENOSPC.

ok, I can take a look. this won't grow the per-CPU buffers bigger,
but will shrink the actual message buffer size by sizeof(atomic),
not that dramatic.

* unrelated, can be done later (if ever) *

speaking of tha actual message buffer size, we, may be, can move
`struct irq_work' out of printk_safe_seq_buf. there is already
a printk-related per-CPU irq_work in place - wake_up_klogd_work.
so we may be can use it, instead of defining a bunch of new irq_works.
this will increase the printk-safe/nmi per-CPU message buffer size
by sizeof(irq_work).

> Also we could use an universal message (no "NMI" or "printk-safe")
> because it could be printed right after flushing the messages
> that fit the buffer.

this "context" part probably can be dropped. both printk-safe and
printk-nmi per-CPU buffer sizes are controlled by a single .config
option anyway; user can't increase the printk-safe buffer size
without increasing the printk-nmi buffer size (in case if printk-safe
buffer is too small).

> This solution is good enough and still better than the previous one, so
> 
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

thanks.

	-ss