Hello, On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 02-05-14 14:22:20, Andrew Morton wrote: > > From: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > > Subject: printk: print initial logbuf contents before re-enabling interrupts > > > > When running on a hideously slow system (~10Mhz FPGA) with a bunch of > > debug printk invocations on the timer interrupt path, we end up filling > > the log buffer faster than we can drain it. > > > > The reason is that console_unlock (which is responsible for moving > > messages out of logbuf to hand over to the console driver) removes one > > message at a time, briefly re-enabling interrupts between each of them. > > If the interrupt path prints more than a single message, then we can > > easily generate more messages than we can print for a regular, recurring > > interrupt (e.g. a 1khz timer). This results in messages getting silently > > dropped, leading to counter-intuitive, incomplete printk traces on the > > console. > > > > Rather than run the console_unlock loop with interrupts disabled (which > > has obvious latency problems), this patch records the sequence number of > > the last message in the log buffer after taking the logbuf_lock. We can > > then print this fixed amount of work before re-enabling interrupts again, > > making sure we keep up with ourself. Other CPUs could still potentially > > flood the buffer, but there's little that we can do to protect against > > that. > I really dislike this patch. It goes completely against my efforts of > lowering irq latency caused by printing to console (which are the > problems I have observed ;).
Hmmm, what makes you think that? Interrupts only remain disabled whilst we process the backlog, which in the usual case should be pretty small. We also hold the logbuf_lock during this time, so we can't get stuck in an unbounded loop. Can you elaborate a bit more on the problems you've observed, please? > My opinion is that when you are printing from each and every interrupt > which happens so often, then you have a problem and disabling IRQs in > printk so that your interrupt doesn't happen that often seems like a poor > solution to me. You could as well just ratelimit your debug messages, > couldn't you? My use-case was basically using printk as a debug trace during early boot when bringing up Linux on a new CPU core. I don't think ratelimiting would be the right thing there, since I really did want as many messages to reach the console as possible (which is also why I wrote this patch, not just the other one in the series). Cheers, Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/