[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] printk: replace ringbuffer
On Wed 2020-02-05 17:12:12, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-02-05, lijiang <> wrote:
> > Do you have any suggestions about the size of CONFIG_LOG_* and
> > CONFIG_PRINTK_* options by default?
> The new printk implementation consumes more than double the memory that
> the current printk implementation requires. This is because dictionaries
> and meta-data are now stored separately.
> If the old defaults (LOG_BUF_SHIFT=17 LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT=12) were
> chosen because they are maximally acceptable defaults, then the defaults
> should be reduced by 1 so that the final size is "similar" to the
> current implementation.
> If instead the defaults are left as-is, a machine with less than 64 CPUs
> will reserve 336KiB for printk information (128KiB text, 128KiB
> dictionary, 80KiB meta-data).
> It might also be desirable to reduce the dictionary size (maybe 1/4 the
> size of text?).

Good questions. It would be great to check the usage on some real

In each case, we should inform users when messages and/or dictionaries
were lost.

Also it would be great to have a way (function) that would show how
big parts of the two ring buffers are occupied by valid data. It might
be useful also to detect problems with the ring buffer:

+ too many space reserved but not commited

+ too many records invalidated because of different ordering
in desc ring and data ring.

> However, since the new printk implementation allows for
> non-intrusive dictionaries, we might see their usage increase and start
> to be as large as the messages themselves.

I wish the dictionaries were never added ;-) They complicate the code
and nobody knows how many people actually use the information.

Best Regards,

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-13 14:09    [W:0.082 / U:2.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site