lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] SGI x86_64 UV: Add limit console output function


Andi Kleen wrote:
> Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> writes:
>
>> With a large number of processors in a system there is an excessive amount
>> of messages sent to the system console. It's estimated that with 4096
>> processors in a system, and the console baudrate set to 56K, the startup
>> messages will take about 84 minutes to clear the serial port.
>>
>> This patch adds (for SGI UV only) a kernel start option "limit_console_
>> output" (or 'lco' for short), which when set provides the ability to
>> temporarily reduce the console loglevel during system startup. This allows
>> informative messages to still be seen on the console without producing
>> excessive amounts of repetious messages.
>>
>> Note that all the messages are still available in the kernel log buffer.
>
> I've run into the same problem (kernel log being flooded on large number of CPU thread
> systems). It's definitely not a UV only problem. Making such a option UV only
> is definitely not the right approach, if anything it needs to be for everyone.

I could use something like the MAXSMP config option to enable it...?
>
> Frankly a lot of these messages made sense for debugging at some point,
> but really don't anymore and should just be removed.

That they still go to the kernel log buffer means the messages are still
available for debugging system problems. KDB has a kernel print option if
you end up there before being able to use 'dmesg'.

>
> Also I don't like the defaults of on. It would be better to evaluate if
> these various messages are really useful and if they are not just remove them.

I believe most distros already do that by setting the loglevel argument
(but I could be wrong since I haven't looked at too many of them.)

>
> For example do we really need the scheduler debug messages by default?

This was the most painful message at Nasa (which has a 2k cpu system). It took
well over an hour for these scheduler messages to print, just because we wanted
to get some other DEBUG prints.
>
> Or do we really need to print the caches for each CPU at boot? The information
> is in sysfs anyways and rarely changes (I added this originally on 64bit,
> but in hindsight it was a bad idea)

I was attempting not to decide whether each message was pertinent, only if it
was redundant.

>
> I don't think it makes much sense to print more than 2-3 lines for each CPU boot
> for example.

That would still be 4 to 12 thousand lines of information which, as you say is
available by other means.
>
> Also more work could be done to make CPU boot up less verbose without
> sacrifying debuggability if something goes wrong.
>
> So please:
> - Simply remove messages that don't make sense, no flag.
> - Make the default non verbose.
> - Minimize output in general, with just a few standard checkpoints so
> that if there is a hang the developer still has some clue what went wrong.

loglevel=4 does this quite nicely. ;-)

Thanks,
Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-26 19:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site