Re: [PATCH 00/50] Add log level to show_stack()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 11/6/19 8:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:27:33PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> Sorry, I should have tried to describe better.
>> I'm trying to remove external users of console_loglevel by following
>> reasons:
> I suppose since all my machines have 'debug ignore_loglevel
> earlyprintk=serial,ttyS0,115200 console=ttyS0,115200' I don't have this
> experience.

Yeah, I remember you avoid all those functionalities of printk(), fair
enough. On the other side, regular users and I'm betting most of
the non-tuned distributions use /proc/sys/kernel/printk by default.
(Checking on my Arch & Fedora - loglevel 4 from the box)

>> - changing console_loglevel on SMP means that unwanted messages from
>> other CPUs will appear (that have lower log level)
>> - on UMP unwanted messages may appear if the code is preempted while it
>> hasn't set the console_loglevel back to old
>> - rising console_loglevel to print wanted message(s) may not work at all
>> if printk() has being delayed and the console_loglevel is already set
>> back to old value
> Sure, frobbing the global console_loglevel is bad.
>> I also have patches in wip those needs to print backtrace with specific
>> loglevel (higher when it's critical, lower when it's notice and
>> shouldn't go to serial console).
> (everything always should go to serial, serial is awesome :-)

Personally I agree. Unfortunately, here @Arista there are switches (I'm
speaking about the order of thousands at least) those have baud-rate 9600.
It's a bit expensive being elaborate with such setup.

>> Besides on local tests I see hits those have headers (messages like
>> "Backtrace: ") without an actual backtrace and the reverse - a backtrace
>> without a reason for it. It's quite annoying and worth addressing by
>> syncing headers log levels to backtraces.
> I suppose I'm surprised there are backtraces that are not important.
> Either badness happened and it needs printing, or the user asked for it
> and it needs printing.
> Perhaps we should be removing backtraces if they're not important
> instead of allowing to print them as lower loglevels?

Well, the use-case for lower log-level is that everything goes into logs
(/var/log/dmesg or /var/log/messages whatever rsyslog has settting).

That has it's value:
- after a failure (i.e. panic) messages, those were only signs that
something goes wrong can be seen in logs which can give ideas what has
- before the failure, those messages go to telemetry and can be
auto-magically processed remotely to take a decision (e.g. balance the
traffic away).

I wish all the information could be gathered in the userspace, but many
existing kernel/driver messages are valuable. A more detailed example is
hung task detector: we want to have the backtrace for a task that is
in uninterruptible state too long, but only in logs as printing on
serial console may lead to holding console lock and watchdog.
Besides customer notifications and investigations, I see the value of such
"bottleneck" warnings during long-running integration tests.


linux-snps-arc mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux