From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
"Qixuan.Wu" <qixuan.wu@linux.alibaba.com>,
linux-kernel-owner <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
"chenggang.qin" <chenggang.qin@linux.alibaba.com>,
caijingxian <caijingxian@linux.alibaba.com>,
"yuanliang.wyl" <yuanliang.wyl@alibaba-inc.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Would you help to tell why async printk solution was not taken to upstream kernel ?
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 10:52:22 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180306015222.GA6713@jagdpanzerIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180305155802.5c0f73fc@gandalf.local.home>
Hello Steven,
Let me Cc Tejun
On (03/05/18 15:58), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:14:16 +0900
> Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But I still think that it makes sense to change that "print it all" approach.
> > With more clear/explicit watchdog-dependent limits - we do direct printk for
> > 1/2 (or 2/3) of a current watchdog threshold value and offload if there is
> > more stuff in the logbuf. Implicit "logbuf size * console throughput" is
> > harder to understand. Disabling watchdog because of printk is a bit too much
> > of a compromise, probably.
>
> If you know the baud rate, logbuf size * console throughput is actually
> trivial to calculate.
>
> Let's see. CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT defaults to 18 (2^18 = 262144).
> Lets say we have a slow 9600 baud serial, which would give us:
>
> 262144 * 8 / 9600 = 219 (rounded up).
>
> Thus, the worse case scenario would be 219 seconds to output the entire
> buffer. Add 10 seconds more for extra overhead, and then you have 229
> second watchdog that should never trigger because of a very slow
> console.
>
> (A more common 151200 baud modem would empty the buffer in 14 seconds).
Right. And when you register one more console (e.g. net console), you need
to re-calculate and re-adjust watchdog. When you set kernel log_buf_len
param (e.g. you might do log_buf_len=32G to store ftrace dumps from NMI)
you need to re-calculate and re-adjust watchdog, etc.
> > IOW, is logbuf worth of messages so critically important after all that we
> > are ready to jeopardize the system stability?
>
> The stability is only in jeopardy if the watchdogs trigger, right?
Not limited to, watchdog threshold is at least deterministic.
Unlike, for instance, this guy
rcu_read_lock()
printk()
rcu_read_unlock()
It will block RCU grace periods. In the worst case this can become a
full-blown RCU stall and even OOM. In a less dramatic case this can
increase memory pressure, cause reclaimer activities, etc, which is not
a very good development, whether you have a small embedded device or a
server under high load, especially given that all you did was a bunch
of printks.
-ss
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-06 1:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1eb584e2-a479-46dd-8a25-820da7a34e85.qixuan.wu@linux.alibaba.com>
2018-03-04 13:01 ` Would you help to tell why async printk solution was not taken to upstream kernel ? Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-04 15:08 ` Qixuan.Wu
2018-03-04 15:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-05 2:14 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-05 20:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-06 2:00 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-06 2:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-06 2:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-06 3:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-06 8:10 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-05 20:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-06 1:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2018-03-06 2:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2018-03-06 3:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-03-05 6:56 ` Qixuan.Wu
2018-03-05 13:29 ` 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=20180306015222.GA6713@jagdpanzerIV \
--to=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=caijingxian@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=chenggang.qin@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=qixuan.wu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yuanliang.wyl@alibaba-inc.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