From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v3 5/6] printk: introduce console_get_next_message() and console_message
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 16:03:17 +0106 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ilhnd5te.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y7Q2B+p1gxJ1WCdj@alley>
On 2023-01-03, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> On Thu 2022-12-22 16:47:39, John Ogness wrote:
>> On 2022-12-21, John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> > +static bool console_emit_next_record(struct console *con, bool *handover, int cookie)
>> > +{
>> > + bool is_extended = console_srcu_read_flags(con) & CON_EXTENDED;
>> > + static char dropped_text[DROPPED_TEXT_MAX];
>> > + static struct console_buffers cbufs;
>> > + static struct console_message cmsg = {
>> > + .cbufs = &cbufs,
>> > + };
>>
>> @cmsg should not be static. The whole point of the console_message
>> wrapper struct is so that it can sit on the stack.
>
> Well, it might actually be better to keep it static for now.
> It always points to static struct console_buffers cbufs anyway.
>
> It would make sense to have it on stack only when it uses
> different buffers.
I think we should avoid making things static when it serves no purpose.
> Which brings the question. Does it makes sense to use
> the same buffers by different struct console_message?
> Will it be safe in any situation?
>
> I did not want to complicate it yesterday. I think that
> I have already proposed this. But this brings back
> the question whether it makes sense to have two structures
> at all.
>
> I still think that it would be easier and even more safe
> to put everything into struct console_message.
>
> I mean to have:
>
> struct console_message {
> char buf[CONSOLE_EXT_LOG_MAX];
> char scratch_buf[LOG_LINE_MAX];
> unsigned int len;
> u64 seq;
> unsigned long dropped;
> };
The current atomic console proposal allocates 1x cbuf per-cpu and 4x
meta-data per-cpu. Different contexts of a cpu will have different
meta-data, but all the contexts of a cpu will share the same cbuf.
If cbufs become embedded in cmsg, then we would allocate 1x cmsg
per-cpu. But the atomic consoles would still need their own 4x per-cpu
meta-data.
When looking at the proposal code, it looks wrong to have meta-data
fields in the cmsg struct that are not being used. But maybe that is
acceptable during the "transition phase" until all legacy consoles are
gone.
For v4 I will drop the console_buffers struct. I will use your
suggestion.
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-03 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-21 20:26 [PATCH printk v3 0/6] printk: cleanup buffer handling John Ogness
2022-12-21 20:26 ` [PATCH printk v3 1/6] printk: move size limit macros into internal.h John Ogness
2023-01-02 14:06 ` Petr Mladek
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 2/6] console: Use BIT() macros for @flags values John Ogness
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 3/6] console: Document struct console John Ogness
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 4/6] printk: introduce struct console_buffers John Ogness
2023-01-02 15:15 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 10:04 ` John Ogness
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 5/6] printk: introduce console_get_next_message() and console_message John Ogness
2022-12-22 15:41 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 14:04 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 14:57 ` John Ogness [this message]
2023-01-03 15:55 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-04 10:26 ` John Ogness
2023-01-04 10:42 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-02 15:52 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 15:41 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 10:02 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 14:05 ` Petr Mladek
2022-12-21 20:27 ` [PATCH printk v3 6/6] printk: introduce console_prepend_dropped() for dropped messages John Ogness
2023-01-02 16:19 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 10:20 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 13:29 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 13:44 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 14:16 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-03 15:00 ` John Ogness
2023-01-03 16:13 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-04 9:06 ` John Ogness
2023-01-04 10:33 ` Petr Mladek
2023-01-05 13:14 ` kernel test robot
2023-01-05 13:55 ` John Ogness
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=87ilhnd5te.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de \
--to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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