lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Printk mulitple line message support
From
Date
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 09:18 +0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:50 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 22:40 +0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 14:58 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > In most cases, printk only guarantees messages from different printk
> > > > calling will not be interleaved between each other. But many printk
> > > > users uses multiple line to form a complete message and call printk
> > > > for each line. So the following situation is possible for two printk
> > > > users running on two CPUs.
> > > >
> > > > line 1 of message from printk user1
> > > > line 1 of message from printk user2
> > > > line 2 of message from printk user1
> > > > line 2 of message from printk user2
> > > >
> > > > This makes kernel log hard to read. One possible solution to this
> > > > issue is to give a sequence number (or ID) to each complete message.
> > > > So the above lines will be:
> > > >
> > > > {1}line 1 of message from printk user1
> > > > {2}line 1 of message from printk user2
> > > > {1}line 2 of message from printk user1
> > > > {2}line 2 of message from printk user2
> > > >
> > > > Then some simple script can be used to group lines together according
> > > > to sequence number in lines.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about that?
> > >
> > > This makes the typical multi-part but non-interleaved
> > > output difficult to read.
> >
> > With a simple script, we can strip out the sequence # easily.
> >
> > > How about determining if there is interleaving and
> > > emitting sequence # only in those cases?
> > >
> > > Perhaps test the atomic for the last sequence #.
> >
> > So we will have no sequence # prefix for printk user1's lines if printk
> > user 2 comes in the middle? Something as follow?
> >
> > line 1 of message from printk user1
> > {2}line 1 of message from printk user2
> > line 2 of message from printk user1
> > {2}line 2 of message from printk user2
> >
> > This will make it hard for a script to sort the lines. Where should it
> > insert lines from printk user2 in the sort result?
>
> 90+% it's the previous line.
>
> I believe you are not solving any real problem
> with pr_<level>_ml.
>
> Most all interleaved complete line uses have some
> pr_fmt prefix that distinguishes between the sources.

Except dev_<level> and netdev_<level>, it appears that many general
pr_<level> do not have the prefix.

> A perhaps larger problem is interleaved partial
> lines with pr_cont.

In an interleaved situation, how to determine <level> for pr_cont?
Maybe we should avoid use it if we care about interleaving?

> I believe that an initiator/terminator is necessary
> for reassembly. Something that could be used
> with pr_<level>, dev_<level>, netdev_<level>, et al.
>
> mp_start(&cookie)
> pr_<level>(fmt, ...);

Do not need cookie here?

> pr_mp_cont(&cookie, fmt, ...);
> pr_mp_cont(&cookie, fmt "\n", ...);
> mp_end(&cookie);

With initiator/terminator the kernel log will be more structural, but
that will make kernel log a little harder to read too.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-15 02:55    [W:0.059 / U:21.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site