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

  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