lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH printk 3/5] printk: use buffer pool for sprint buffers
On Thu 2020-09-24 15:17:46, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/09/22 17:44), John Ogness wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * The sprint buffers are used with interrupts disabled, so each CPU
> > + * only requires 2 buffers: for non-NMI and NMI contexts. Recursive
> > + * printk() calls are handled by the safe buffers.
> > + */
> > +#define SPRINT_CTX_DEPTH 2
> > +
> > +/* Static sprint buffers for early boot (only 1 CPU). */
> > +static DECLARE_BITMAP(sprint_static_textbuf_map, SPRINT_CTX_DEPTH);
> > +static char sprint_static_textbuf[SPRINT_CTX_DEPTH * LOG_LINE_MAX];
> > +
> > +/* Dynamically allocated sprint buffers. */
> > +static unsigned int sprint_dynamic_textbuf_count;
> > +static unsigned long *sprint_dynamic_textbuf_map;
> > +static char *sprint_dynamic_textbuf;
>
> Just a question:
>
> Can dynamic_textbuf be a PER_CPU array of five textbuf[1024] buffers
> (for normal printk, nmi, hard irq, soft irq and one extra buffer for
> recursive printk calls)?

That would be my preferred fallback when the approach with
vsprintf(NULL, ) is not acceptable for some reasons.

But I still think that calling vsprintf(NULL, ) is the most trivial
and good enough solution.

IMHO, the solution with per-CPU buffers is not that trivial, for
example:

What if recursive printk() is interrupted by NMI and it causes
yet another recursion?

Is one level of recursion enough?

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-24 10:55    [W:0.153 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site