Kay
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Kay Sievers <k...@vrfy.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Pandita, Vikram <vikram.pand...@ti.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Venu Byravarasu <vbyravar...@nvidia.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> As having Macro locally in the file of interest would serve the purpose,
>>> Why to change the printk code?
>>
>> As stated, the logic followed is exactly similar to well proven and
>> approved way to handle printk time stamp: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME
>> Its an overhead on the system that enables the config option:
>> CONFIG_PRINTK_CPUID
>> Otherwise the system remains as is.
>>
>> To gain insight on SMP system logging behavior, the price to pay is
>> the extra 4 chars per printk line,
>> just like printk-time adds 15 chars to each line. Both options can be
>> disabled as desired.
>>
>> So i am not sure what kind of option you are proposing?
>> Do u imply PRINTK_TIME is not right then?
>
> It's 8 bytes per message for storing the timestamp in the records.
> There is never 15 bytes storage space needed, the prefix is
> constructed on-the-fly only while exporting the data.
When i was referring to 15 chars, its coming from here:
Its the space reserved in each line of output. Corresponding space for
cpuid is 4 chars: "[x] ":
static size_t print_time(u64 ts, char *buf)
{
unsigned long rem_nsec;
if (!printk_time)
return 0;
if (!buf)
>>>> return 15;
>
> The CPU-ID would need at least two additional bytes (2^16 CPUS) in
> every record, unless it's a compile-time option.
are u proposing:
a) to make cpuid a u16?
b) to put cpuid in struct cont and struct log - under the #ifdef macro?
> I can't tell, if
> everybody wants to pay the storage space for the the CPU-ID feature.
>
> Kay
--
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/
