Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:37:21 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: inject caller information into the body of
 message
Message-ID: <20181001023721.GA6409@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <49d22738-17ad-410a-be0a-d27d76ba9f37@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20180914115028.GB20572@tigerII.localdomain>
 <e855cbef-03ff-b4ac-3e06-d2f2f48cfb1f@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20180914122217.GA518@tigerII.localdomain>
 <a661ed7f-889a-1811-0ada-111cc5185d05@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <7dadfa8c-1f69-ae0f-d747-dbbc9f97c2b6@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20180928090939.GE1160@jagdpanzerIV>
 <3b378c7d-c613-4a8d-67f8-946fac8ad0b0@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <20180929105151.GA1392@tigerII.localdomain>
 <91efcff8-dc6d-b7b4-9ac8-2f3882289f95@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <91efcff8-dc6d-b7b4-9ac8-2f3882289f95@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (09/29/18 20:15), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 
> Because there is no guarantee that memory information is dumped under the
> oom_lock mutex. The oom_lock is held when calling out_of_memory(), and it
> cannot be held when reporting GFP_ATOMIC memory allocation failures.

IOW, static pr_line buffer needs additional synchronization for OOM. Correct?

If we are about to have a list of printk buffers then we probably can
define a list of NR_CPUS cont buffers. And we probably can reuse the
existing struct cont for buffered printk, having 2 different struct-s
for the same thing - struct cont and struct printk_buffer - is not very
cool.

> But I don't want line buffered printk() API to truncate upon out of
> space for line buffered printk() API.

All printk()-s are limited by LOG_LINE_MAX. Buffered printk() is not
special.

	-ss