Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread

From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170629074000.GA14897@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170628131732.GP1538@pathway.suse.cz>

On (06/28/17 15:17), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2017-06-01 16:21:02, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (05/31/17 16:30), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (05/29/17 14:12), Jan Kara wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > Actually I had something very similar in old versions of my patch set. And
> > > > it didn't work very well. The problem was that e.g. sometimes scheduler
> > > > decided that printk kthread should run on the same CPU as the process
> > > > currently doing printing and in such case printk kthread never took over
> > > > printing and the machine locked up due to heavy printing.
> > > 
> > > hm, interesting.
> > 
> > that's a tricky problem to deal with.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ... so may be we can have per-CPU printk kthreads then
> > 
> > 	static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, printk_kthread);
> > 
> > 
> > SMP hotplug threads, to be precise, the same way as watchdog has it. and
> > then during offloading we can wake_up any printk_kthread that is knowingly
> > not from this-CPU, all of them, let them compete for the console_sem.
> > 
> > just a quick idea.
> > 
> > thoughts?
> 
> I am not sure if this is worth the resources. It think that one
> big win of workqueues was that it reduced the amount of running
> per-CPU kthreads. There are systems with thousands of CPUs.
> 
> I am a bit afraid to use workqueues for flushing consoles.
> It would be another dependency and another risk.
> 
> Otherwise, per-CPU kthreads/workqueues primary handle per-CPU
> resources. But printk_kthread would handle consoles that
> need to be serialized anyway. It sounds weird to have
> per-CPU task just to increase the chance that it will
> get scheduled.

yeah. was just a quick idea. it has some 'interesting' options, tho.
I'll reply in another thread.

the waste of resources argument is somewhat interesting. I'm not
arguing, and agree that per-CPU kthread for printk seems like a
massive-massive overkill. the point is - I think that 99.999% of
the time printk_safe and printk_nmi buffers are not needed. they
simply waste memory. on a $BIG systems that's, once again, can be
huge. so in terms of resources printk probably must do better,
already.

	-ss