Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/25] printk: new implementation
From: Sergey Senozhatsky
Date: Mon Mar 04 2019 - 00:23:43 EST
On (02/13/19 15:43), John Ogness wrote:
> On 2019-02-13, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> - A dedicated kernel thread is created for printing to all consoles in
> >> a fully preemptible context.
> > How do you handle sysrq-<foo> printouts on systems which can't
> > schedule printk-kthread?
> If those sysrq printouts are at the emergency loglevel (which most are),
> then they are printed immediately to the emergency consoles. This has
> already proved useful for our own kernel debugging work. For example,
> currently sysrq-z for very large traces result in messages being dropped
> because of printk buffer overflows. But with the emergency console we
> always see the full trace buffer.
Are we sure that all systems will always have ->atomic console(-s)
enabled? Is it possible to convert all console drivers to ->atomic?
fbcon, for instance (with scrolling and font scaling, etc)? If there
are setups which can be fully !atomic (in terms of console output)
then we, essentially, have a fully preemptible kthread printk
> Because you have already done so much work and experimentation with
> printk-kthreads, I feel like many of your comments are related to your
> kthread work in this area. Really the big design change I make with my
> printk-kthread is that it is only for non-critical messages. For
> anything critical, users should rely on an emergency console.
Fair point. Well maybe my printk-kthread comments are not utterly
unreasonable, but who knows :)