linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>,
	Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Add loglevel for "do not print to consoles".
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:21:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200429142106.GG28637@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b1d507b1-dae7-f526-c74a-d465ddecea6a@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>

On Wed 29-04-20 01:23:15, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2020/04/29 0:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 28-04-20 22:11:19, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Existing KERN_$LEVEL allows a user to determine whether he/she wants that message
> >> to be printed on consoles (even if it spams his/her operation doing on consoles), and
> >> at the same time constrains that user whether that message is saved to log files.
> >> KERN_NO_CONSOLES allows a user to control whether he/she wants that message to be
> >> saved to log files (without spamming his/her operation doing on consoles).
> > 
> > I understand that. But how do I know whether the user considers the
> > particular information important enough to be dumped on the console.
> > This sounds like a policy in the kernel to me.
> 
> I'm still unable to understand your question.

I am trying to say that KERN_NO_CONSOLES resembles more a policy than a
priority. Because I as a developer have no idea whether the message is
good enough for console or not.

> >                                                I simply cannot forsee
> > any console configuration to tell whether my information is going to
> > swamp the console to no use or not.
> 
> Neither can I.
> 
> >                                     Compare that to KERN_$LEVEL instead.
> > I know that an information is of low/high importance. It is the user
> > policy to decide and base some filtering on top of that priority.
> 
> Whether to use KERN_NO_CONSOLES is not per-importance basis but per-content basis.
> 
> Since both pr_info("[%7d] %5d %5d %8lu %8lu %8ld %8lu         %5hd %s\n", ...) from dump_tasks() and
> pr_info("oom-kill:constraint=%s,nodemask=%*pbl", ...) from dump_oom_summary() use KERN_INFO importance,
> existing KERN_$LEVEL-based approach cannot handle these messages differently. Since changing the former to
> e.g. KERN_DEBUG will cause userspace to discard the messages, we effectively can't change KERN_$LEVEL.

I believe we are free to change kernel log levels as we find a fit. I
was not aware that KERN_DEBUG messages are automatically filtered out.
Even if this is the case then this doesn't really disallow admins to
allow KERN_DEBUG into log files. Dump of the oom eligible tasks is
arguably a debugging output anyway. So I disagree with your statement.

> If the kernel allows the former to use KERN_NO_CONSOLES in addition to KERN_INFO, the administrator can
> select from two choices: printing "both the former and the latter" or "only the latter" to consoles.

I am not really familiar with all the possibilities admins have when
setting filtering for different consoles but KERN_NO_CONSOLES sounds
rather alien to the existing priority based approach. You can fine tune
priorities and that is all right because they should be reflecting
importance. But global no-consoles doesn't really fit in here because
each console might require a different policy but the marking is
unconditional and largely unaware of existing consoles.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-29 14:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-24  2:42 [PATCH] printk: Add loglevel for "do not print to consoles" Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-24 13:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-24 14:00   ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-24 14:31     ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-24 15:28       ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-24 15:42         ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-24 15:52           ` Dmitry Safonov
2020-04-24 16:10           ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-24 16:21             ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-24 16:34               ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-25  0:46 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-04-25  1:07   ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-27  6:21     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-04-28 11:33       ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-28 12:18         ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-28 13:11           ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-28 15:45             ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-28 16:23               ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-04-29 14:21                 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-04-29 16:35                   ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-13  6:26                     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2020-05-13  7:58                       ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-13 10:04                         ` Petr Mladek
2020-05-13 10:49                           ` Michal Hocko
2020-05-13 11:24                             ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-13 12:19                               ` Petr Mladek
2020-05-13 12:59                                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-14  8:00                                   ` Petr Mladek
2020-05-14 11:23                                     ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-14 16:26                                       ` Petr Mladek
2020-05-14 23:24                                         ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-13 11:03                           ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-13 12:34                             ` Petr Mladek
2020-05-13 13:46                             ` Steven Rostedt
2020-05-13 14:03                               ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-13 13:55                             ` Steven Rostedt
2020-05-13 15:20                               ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-06  9:45         ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-06 15:26           ` Joe Perches
2020-05-07  0:50             ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-07  1:02               ` Joe Perches
2020-05-07  5:13                 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-07  5:30                   ` Joe Perches
2020-05-07  5:39                     ` Tetsuo Handa

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=20200429142106.GG28637@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=dima@arista.com \
    --cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    /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).