linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer implementation
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:09:34 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190625090934.GC532@jagdpanzerIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875zoujbq4.fsf@linutronix.de>

On (06/25/19 10:44), John Ogness wrote:
> > In vprintk_emit(), are we going to always reserve 1024-byte
> > records, since we don't know the size in advance, e.g.
> > 
> > 	printk("%pS %s\n", regs->ip, current->name)
> > 		prb_reserve(&e, &rb, ????);
> > 
> > or are we going to run vscnprintf() on a NULL buffer first,
> > then reserve the exactly required number of bytes and afterwards
> > vscnprintf(s) -> prb_commit(&e)?
> 
> (As suggested by Petr) I want to use vscnprintf() on a NULL
> buffer. However, a NULL buffer is not sufficient because things like the
> loglevel are sometimes added via %s (for example, in /dev/kmsg). So
> rather than a NULL buffer, I would use a small buffer on the stack
> (large enough to store loglevel/cont information). This way we can use
> vscnprintf() to get the exact size _and_ printk_get_level() will see
> enough of the formatted string to parse what it needs.

OK. I guess this should work except for the cases when we want to
printk that we are running out of stack :)

More seriously, tho, sometimes messages come with dictionaries of
key/value pairs. I don't think we impose any strict limits on the
number of key/value pair or on the overall size of the dictionary
each record can have (up to a single PAGE, I'd guess. I really need
to check printk code). Finding a sufficiently large buffer size
might be a bit of a task.

> > I'm asking this because, well, if the most common usage
> > pattern (printk->prb_reserve) will always reserve fixed
> > size records (aka data blocks), then you _probably_ (??)
> > can drop the 'variable size records' requirement from prb
> > design and start looking at records (aka data blocks) as
> > fixed sized chunks of bytes, which are always located at
> > fixed offsets.
>
> The average printk message size is well under 128 bytes.

Do you also count in dictionary of properties (key/value pairs) which
records can carry?

For printks from core kernel 128 bytes would be a good estimation,
for dev_printk() and so on - I'm not exactly sure.

cat /dev/kmsg

This one, for instance, is a single logbuf record

6,560,2470340,-;hid-generic 0003:093A:2510.0001: input,hidraw0: USB HID v1.11 Mouse [PixArt USB Optical Mouse] on usb-0000:00:14.0-3/input0
 SUBSYSTEM=hid
 DEVICE=+hid:0003:093A:2510.0001

I suspect that it's larger than 128 bytes.

> It would be quite wasteful to always reserve 1K blocks.

Agreed.

	-ss

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-06-25  9:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-07 16:23 [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] printk: new ringbuffer implementation John Ogness
2019-06-07 16:23 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk " John Ogness
2019-06-18  4:51   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-06-18 22:12     ` John Ogness
2019-06-25  6:45       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-06-25  7:15         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-06-25  8:44           ` John Ogness
2019-06-25  9:06             ` Petr Mladek
2019-06-25 10:03               ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-06-25 12:03                 ` John Ogness
2019-06-26  2:08                   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-06-26  7:16                     ` John Ogness
2019-06-26  7:45                       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-06-26  7:47                       ` Petr Mladek
2019-06-26  7:59                         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-06-25  9:09             ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2019-06-18 11:12   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-18 22:18     ` John Ogness
2019-06-18 11:22   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-18 22:30     ` John Ogness
2019-06-19 10:46       ` Andrea Parri
2019-06-20 22:50         ` John Ogness
2019-06-21 12:16           ` Andrea Parri
2019-06-19 11:08       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-18 11:47   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-20 22:23     ` John Ogness
2019-06-26 22:40       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-26 22:53         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-28  9:50         ` John Ogness
2019-06-28 15:44           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-28 16:07             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-01 10:39             ` John Ogness
2019-07-01 14:10               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-01 14:11               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-29 21:05           ` Andrea Parri
2019-06-30  2:03             ` John Ogness
2019-06-30 14:08               ` Andrea Parri
2019-07-02 14:13                 ` John Ogness
2019-06-26 22:47       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-21 14:05   ` Petr Mladek
2019-06-24  8:33     ` John Ogness
2019-06-24 14:09       ` Petr Mladek
2019-06-25 13:29         ` John Ogness
2019-06-26  8:29           ` Petr Mladek
2019-06-26  9:09             ` John Ogness
2019-06-26 21:16       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-26 21:43         ` John Ogness
2019-06-27  8:28           ` Petr Mladek
2019-07-04 10:33     ` [PATCH POC] printk_ringbuffer: Alternative implementation of lockless printk ringbuffer Petr Mladek
2019-07-04 14:59       ` John Ogness
2019-07-08 15:23         ` Petr Mladek
2019-07-09  1:34           ` John Ogness
2019-07-09  9:06             ` Petr Mladek
2019-07-09 10:21               ` John Ogness
2019-07-09 11:58                 ` Petr Mladek
2019-08-14  3:46                   ` John Ogness
2019-06-24 13:55   ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer implementation John Ogness
2019-06-25  8:55   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-06-25  9:19     ` John Ogness
2019-06-07 16:23 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] printk-rb: add test module John Ogness
2019-06-17 21:09 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] printk: new ringbuffer implementation Thomas Gleixner
2019-06-18  7:15   ` Petr Mladek

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=20190625090934.GC532@jagdpanzerIV \
    --to=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).