lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] printk: allow increasing the ring buffer depending on the number of CPUs
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 11:28 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * If you set log_buf_len=n kernel parameter LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_SHIFT will
>> + * be ignored. LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_SHIFT is a proactive measure for large
>> + * systems. With a LOG_BUF_SHIFT of 18 and LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_SHIFT 12 at
>> + * we'd require more than 64 CPUs to trigger an increase from the
>> + * default.
>> + */
>> + if (!new_log_buf_len && (cpu_extra > __LOG_BUF_LEN / 2))
> ^ that ! looks wrong.

That check is there so that we ignore the cpu_extra stuff if the
kernel parameter was passed, given that in that case new_log_buf_len
would be set.

> We should be checking for log_buf_len set instead.

When log_buf_len=n is set as a kernel parameter log_buf_len_setup()
will set new_log_buf_len to something, the sanity test to not update
the ring buffer unless the value passed is greater than the default
value is checked by log_buf_len_setup().

>> + new_log_buf_len = __LOG_BUF_LEN + cpu_extra;
>
> You could also move the whole thing below the return statement, that way
> we can avoid double checking new_log_buf_len. Otherwise looks kinda
> weird.

If we did we'd be forcing the kernel parameter to be used to enable
this functionality, but we don't want that.

Luis


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-14 00:41    [W:0.091 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site