All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:40:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1469544015.120686.324.camel@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWKk8sLvgXwzu1RQnZRQ7f1f-+p53iJ7yasp_=zTnFDHQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2523 bytes --]

On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 08:05 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:31 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 07:59 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > > > If we do all this stuff, can we also try to clean up earlyprintk a
> > > > bit?  The whole earlyconsole mechanism is a mess, and switching over
> > > > to the non-early console is only somewhat functional.  I'd love to see
> > > > this all simplified: before there's any console at all available, just
> > > > buffer messages.  Then, when a console shows up, write the buffer out.
> > > > Then earlyprintk can work just like regular printk.
> > > > 
> > > Begging the question how one would debug failures during that time.
> > > The current earlyprintk stuff is at least able to print out _something_,
> > > so that you have some idea what went wrong.
> > > Without that things will become _really_ hard during board bringup.
> > 
> > No, you don't actually *delay* the console output. You still register
> > the console as soon as you physically can, but you just don't have all
> > that nasty special-casing of the "earlyprintk" nonsense; you just make
> > sure the standard console output is capable of working as early as you
> > need it to.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> If we could convince fbcon to work early (which it really ought to),

We had bootx on PowerPC which worked from extremely early.

> But doing this really nicely does tie in to the async printk
> discussion for a different reason.  I think that we should always
> initialize the obvious "early" consoles that can be cleanly enumerated
> early (e.g. EFI).  What we shouldn't do by default is *display*
> anything to them unless we crash, because the distro people want a
> clean boot to look pretty.  ISTM the condition for flushing the async
> printk buffers could be the same as the condition for actually writing
> to pre-VT consoles.

Me no like.

That makes even *less* sense for early boot than it does during later
runtime. Because even *more* of the 'we crash' scenarios during early
boot are going to be uncontrolled "oh shit" happenings, not "oh dear,
it looks like we're going to crash so let's helpfully dump out all the
console messages before we do so".

We already have *really* early command line parsing; we can use that to
determine the console loglevel if we need to. No need to be printing
debug messages to the console unconditionally and upsetting the
graphical boot...

-- 
dwmw2

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 5760 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-26 14:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-19  3:47 [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-19  3:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-19  6:17 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-07-19  6:49   ` Josh Triplett
2016-07-19  7:02     ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-07-19  7:11       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-07-20  6:02         ` Jan Kara
2016-07-20 22:54       ` Josh Triplett
2016-07-21  0:46         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-21  1:12           ` Josh Triplett
2016-07-19  7:33   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-19  7:38     ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-07-19  7:46       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-19  8:02         ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-07-19  8:23           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-21 10:36           ` David Woodhouse
2016-07-21 12:31             ` Jan Kara
2016-07-28  2:55             ` Steven Rostedt
2016-07-20  6:09       ` Jan Kara
2016-07-19  7:46   ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-07-19  7:53     ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-07-19 13:55       ` Jan Kara
2016-07-28  2:59         ` Steven Rostedt
2016-07-28  4:12           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-28 13:02             ` Steven Rostedt
2016-07-20  3:35   ` Wangnan (F)
2016-07-21  1:16     ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-07-21  1:52       ` Wangnan (F)
2016-07-21  5:59       ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-07-21 10:31         ` David Woodhouse
2016-07-21 11:19           ` Josh Triplett
2016-07-21 11:59             ` David Woodhouse
2016-07-21 14:21               ` Josh Triplett
2016-07-21 14:40                 ` David Woodhouse
2016-07-28  3:05                 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-08-02 11:59               ` Petr Mladek
2016-07-21 15:05           ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-07-26 14:40             ` David Woodhouse [this message]
2016-07-26 15:44               ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-07-26 21:00               ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-07-27  0:03                 ` David Woodhouse
2016-07-27  1:16                   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-21 10:28       ` David Woodhouse
2016-07-19 14:45 ` James Bottomley
2016-07-19 14:55   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-19 17:58     ` James Bottomley
2016-07-19 18:24       ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-20  2:08       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-20  6:14     ` Jan Kara
2016-09-21  4:41 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-10-31  6:54   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-10-31 13:56     ` Theodore Ts'o
2016-10-31 13:59       ` Jiri Kosina
2016-10-31 14:56       ` [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] printk considered harmful (was: [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk) Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-10-31 16:18         ` Theodore Ts'o
2016-10-31 18:21           ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-10-31 18:26             ` [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] printk considered harmful Hannes Reinecke
2016-10-31 20:28           ` [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] printk considered harmful (was: [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk) Jan Kara
2016-11-01 12:27             ` [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] printk considered harmful Hannes Reinecke
2016-11-01 17:50         ` [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] printk considered harmful (was: [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk) Sergey Senozhatsky

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1469544015.120686.324.camel@infradead.org \
    --to=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.