From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752210AbdF3MMV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 30 Jun 2017 08:12:21 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54095 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752052AbdF3ML2 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 30 Jun 2017 08:11:28 -0400
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:11:24 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv4 0/7] printk: introduce printing kernel threads
Message-ID: <20170630121124.GF23069@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20170602090345.624-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20170608081829.GA442@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170628134251.GQ1538@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20170629075630.GB14897@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170629075630.GB14897@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu 2017-06-29 16:56:30, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> yeah, I agree and understand that per-CPU printk kthreads
> is a bit... too much.
> 
> it was just a quick idea and I just gave it a try. but there
> are some potential takeaways from the series (not sure if you
> looked at the last patches of the series).
> 
> with per-CPU kthreads we easily
> 
> 1) can be quite flexible
>    there can be only certain CPUs that will take over printing duty.
>    so if you system has, say, IRQ affinity set up or anything else
>    that is critical, you can forbid printk offloading to those CPUs.
>    so "important" CPUs will not print out more than atomic_limit chars,
>    the rest of the job will be handled by "less important" CPUs.
> 
>    * this can be achieved with a single printk kthread.
>      but still, that's something I haven't thought about before this
>      series.

Sounds interesting. Well, I would prefer to leave this for
further optimization. It is a completely new area and it might
open another can of worms.

> 2) can offload printing to other CPUs from vprintk_emit()
>    and avoid any of scheduler->timekeeping->etc. paths. which will
>    replace printk_deferred().

I probably miss something. There is still called wake_up_process()
in this patchset and we could not do this in some scheduler and
timekeeping paths. Also we must not take the console_lock() in
these paths because it calls wake_up_process() as well. But
we want to flush few lines when possible.

Best Regards,
Petr