Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] asynchronous printk

[Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>]

On 07/19/2016 08:17 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 05:47 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Wondering if anyone will be interested in printk-related topics
>> (or we can handle it in the mailing list).
>>
>> What I have on my list is:
>>
>>
>> - synchronous printk()
>>
>> printk() prints messages from kernel printk buffer until the buffer
>> is empty. When serial console is attached, printing is slow and thus
>> other CPUs in the system have plenty of time to append new messages to
>> the buffer while one CPU is printing. Thus the CPU can spend unbounded
>> amount of time doing printing in console_unlock().  This is especially
>> serious problem if the printk() calling console_unlock() was called with
>> interrupts disabled, or from IRQ, or from spin_lock protected section
>> (if the spinlock is contended), etc. etc. IOW, printk() is quite dangerous
>> function to call in some cases, it can cause different types of lockups
>> (soft, hard, spinlock), stalls and so on.
>>
>> we have some progress on this side. printk() can offload printing from
>> sensitive and unsafe contexts to a schedulable printk_kthread context (a
>> special purpose printing kthread).
>> but "The whole idea remains worrisome", per Andrew :)
>>
> Yes. The main problem stems from the fact that printk has two different
> and conflicting use-cases:
> - Really urgent, 'I am about to die' messages. Which obviously need to
>   be printed out as fast as possible.
> - Rather largish, information/logging 'what I always wanted to tell you'
>   type of messages. These messages tend to be very large, but at the end
>   it doesn't really matter _when_ they'll be printed as they are
>   time-stamped anyway.

I think you brought up this topic last year in a lightning talk, correct?
Didn't Linus say "fix the console then"?


> 
> For the first use-case you absolutely need a synchronous printk, but
> this is a complete killer for the second case.
> And OTOH having a separate thread is really the way to go for the second
> case, but an absolute no-go for the first.
> 
> So I really wonder if it does make sense to lump both use-cases into one
> call, or whether it wouldn't be better to have two distinct calls
> for that (or, for the sake of argument, use KERN_EMERG to trigger
> synchronous printks).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hannes
>