On (09/24/18 17:11), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> The reason of using statically preallocated global buffers is that I think
> that it is inconvenient for KERN_CONT users to calculate necessary bytes
> only for avoiding message truncation. The pr_line might be passed to deep
> into the callchain and adjusting buffer size whenever the content's possible
> max length changes is as much painful as changing printk() to accept only
> one "const char *" argument. Even if we guarantee that any context can
> allocate buffer from kernel stack, we cannot guarantee that many concurrent
> printk() won't trigger lockup. Thus, I think that trying to allocate from
> finite static buffers with a fallback to unbuffered printk() upon failure
> is sufficient.
Yes, this makes sense. At the same time we can keep pr_line buffer
in .bss
static char buffer[1024];
static DEFINE_PR_LINE_BUF(..., buffer);
just like you have already mentioned. But that's going to require a
case-by-case handling; so a big list of printk buffers is a simpler
option. Fallback, tho, can be painful. On a system with 1024 CPUs can
one have more than 16 concurrent cont printks? If the answer is yes,
then we are looking at the same broken cont output as before.
-ss
