Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 43/50] xtensa: Add show_stack_loglvl() | From | Dmitry Safonov <> | Date | Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:06:44 +0000 |
| |
On 11/6/19 8:15 AM, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Tue 2019-11-05 20:13:22, Max Filippov wrote: [..] >>> @@ -511,16 +512,21 @@ void show_stack(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long *sp) >>> sp = stack_pointer(task); >>> stack = sp; >>> >>> - pr_info("Stack:\n"); >>> + printk("%sStack:\n", loglvl); >>> >>> for (i = 0; i < kstack_depth_to_print; i++) { >>> if (kstack_end(sp)) >>> break; >>> - pr_cont(" %08lx", *sp++); >>> + printk("%s %08lx", loglvl, *sp++); > > KERN_CONT can be combined with any other loglevel. > So you could keep using pr_cont() together with explicit loglevel: > > pr_cont("%s %08lx", loglvl, *sp++);
Yes, that's what I had, but than misread the printk() code and thought that it doesn't add '\n' to messages.. Will fix.
> It should fix the problems reported below. > > Well, the preferred solution would be to snprintf() the continuous > line into a temporary buffer. And printk() it when it is complete. > pr_cont() is not reliable when more CPUs print at the same time.
Yep. Not sure if doing it now in those per-arch patches or keep the changes to minimum.
> >> This change doesn't work well with printk timestamps, it changes >> the following output on xtensa architecture >> >> [ 3.404675] Stack: >> [ 3.404861] a05773e2 00000018 bb03dc34 bb03dc30 a0008640 bb03dc70 >> ba9ba410 37c3f000 >> [ 3.405414] 37c3f000 d7c3f000 00000800 bb03dc50 a02b97ed bb03dc90 >> ba9ba400 ba9ba410 >> [ 3.405969] a05fc1bc bbff28dc 00000000 bb03dc70 a02b7fb9 bb03dce0 >> ba9ba410 a0579044 >> >> into this: >> [ 3.056825] Stack: >> [ 3.056963] a04ebb20 >> [ 3.056995] bb03dc10 >> [ 3.057138] 00000001 >> [ 3.057277] bb03dc10 >> [ 3.057815] a00083ca >> [ 3.057965] bb03dc50 >> [ 3.058107] ba9ba410 >> [ 3.058247] 37c3f000 >> [ 3.058387] >> [ 3.058584] a05773e2 >> [ 3.058614] 00000001 >> [ 3.058755] a05ca0bc >> [ 3.058896] bb03dc30 >> [ 3.059035] a000865c >> [ 3.059180] bb03dc70 >> [ 3.059319] ba9ba410 >> [ 3.059459] 37c3f000 >> [ 3.059598] >> [ 3.059795] 37c3f000 >> [ 3.059824] d7c3f000 >> [ 3.059964] 00000800 >> [ 3.060103] bb03dc50 >> [ 3.060241] a02b9809 >> [ 3.060379] bb03dc90 >> [ 3.060519] ba9ba400 >> [ 3.060658] ba9ba410 >> [ 3.060796]
Hey Max,
thanks for the testing and the report - will fix it in v2.
Thanks, Dmitry
| |