From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.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>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] printk: new ringbuffer implementation
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 03:33:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190727013333.11260-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de> (raw)
Hello,
This is a follow-up RFC on the work to re-implement much of
the core of printk. The threads for the previous RFC versions
are here: v1[0], v2[1].
As was planned[2], this is only the first piece: a new
lockless ringbuffer.
Changes from v2:
- Moved all code into kernel/printk/. Let's keep it private
for now.
- Split the ringbuffer into 3 components:
* a data ringbuffer (dataring) to manage the raw data and
data descriptors
* a numbered list (numlist) to manage committed entries and
their sequence numbers
* the printk_ringbuffer, which is the high-level structure
providing the reader/writer API and glue for the other
structures
Splitting the components apart helped to document their
roles and their related memory barriers (and will hopefully
also simplify the review process).
- Renamed most functions, structures, and variables based on
v2 feedback.
- Rewrote and reformatted nearly all comments (particularly
the memory barrier comments) based on v2 feedback.
- Addressed implementation issues with v2:
* invalid data blocks potentially becoming valid because of
overflows
* weak associations between data blocks and descriptors
* excessive freeing of data blocks due to unavailable
descriptors
- Improved error handling and data integrity checks in the test
module.
For the memory barrier work I wrote a litmus test for nearly
every memory barrier. I did not include these in the series.
Should I? If yes, where should they be placed?
I would like to point out that Petr Mladek posted a
proof-of-concept[3] alternate implementation. I wanted to base my
v3 on his work, but ran into too many problems getting it to
run acceptably. I will address those issues in that thread. This
is why my v3 is based directly on my v2.
John Ogness
[0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190212143003.48446-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190607162349.18199-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de
[2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87y35hn6ih.fsf@linutronix.de
[3] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190704103321.10022-1-pmladek@suse.com
John Ogness (2):
printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer implementation
printk-rb: add test module
kernel/printk/Makefile | 5 +
kernel/printk/dataring.c | 761 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kernel/printk/dataring.h | 95 ++++++
kernel/printk/numlist.c | 375 +++++++++++++++++++++
kernel/printk/numlist.h | 72 ++++
kernel/printk/ringbuffer.c | 800 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kernel/printk/ringbuffer.h | 288 ++++++++++++++++
kernel/printk/test_prb.c | 256 +++++++++++++++
8 files changed, 2652 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 kernel/printk/dataring.c
create mode 100644 kernel/printk/dataring.h
create mode 100644 kernel/printk/numlist.c
create mode 100644 kernel/printk/numlist.h
create mode 100644 kernel/printk/ringbuffer.c
create mode 100644 kernel/printk/ringbuffer.h
create mode 100644 kernel/printk/test_prb.c
--
2.11.0
next reply other threads:[~2019-07-27 1:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-27 1:33 John Ogness [this message]
2019-07-27 1:33 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer implementation John Ogness
2019-07-27 1:33 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] printk-rb: add test module John Ogness
2019-07-31 6:46 ` John Ogness
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=20190727013333.11260-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--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).