public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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