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 S1752038AbdF3Nij (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:38:39 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.83.66]:35835 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751690AbdF3Nih (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:38:37 -0400
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 22:38:44 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, 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][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
Message-ID: <20170630133844.GD792@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20170509082859.854-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20170509082859.854-3-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20170510055935.GA1966@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170529092906.GD21894@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20170531072233.GC7672@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170628121925.GN1538@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20170629073321.GA475@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170630070131.GA474@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170630131610.GT1538@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170630131610.GT1538@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (06/30/17 15:16), Petr Mladek wrote:
> Anyway, the handshake during offloading might be pretty
> problematic. To be honest, I do not have much experience
> with it. I have shared some my fears in the other mail[1].
> Jan Kara spent a lot of time on this and probably could
> say more.
> 
> Maybe, we could try to look into the throotling path. Slowing down
> massive printk() callers looks necessary when things gets
> out of control.

throttling, in some form, is already there. I think.

there is a printk_delay() function. which we can silently activate
when things don't look cool anymore. and printk_delay() is already
getting called on every vprintk_emit() entry. the question is -- how
big should be our delay value, and... when do we need to activate
printk_delay()?

when the distance between console_seq and log_next_seq... suggests
that we will drop (overwrite) un-flushed messages sooner than console_seq
reaches log_next_seq? so log_next_seq is closer to log_first_seq than
console_seq to log_next_seq. or something like this... I'm a bit tired
after a long week; need more time to think about it.


the same printk_delay() *may be* can be used in console_unlock(), to
give potential new console_sem owner more time. just an idea.

> I wonder if I could add some counter into task_struct.
> It might be configurable. I am not sure if people would
> want this enabled on production systems where the level
> of messages should be lower anyway.

	-ss