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:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:09:34 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer
 implementation
Message-ID: <20190625090934.GC532@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <20190607162349.18199-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20190607162349.18199-2-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20190618045117.GA7419@jagdpanzerIV>
 <87imt2bl0k.fsf@linutronix.de>
 <20190625064543.GA19050@jagdpanzerIV>
 <20190625071500.GB19050@jagdpanzerIV>
 <875zoujbq4.fsf@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <875zoujbq4.fsf@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (06/25/19 10:44), John Ogness wrote:
> > In vprintk_emit(), are we going to always reserve 1024-byte
> > records, since we don't know the size in advance, e.g.
> > 
> > 	printk("%pS %s\n", regs->ip, current->name)
> > 		prb_reserve(&e, &rb, ????);
> > 
> > or are we going to run vscnprintf() on a NULL buffer first,
> > then reserve the exactly required number of bytes and afterwards
> > vscnprintf(s) -> prb_commit(&e)?
> 
> (As suggested by Petr) I want to use vscnprintf() on a NULL
> buffer. However, a NULL buffer is not sufficient because things like the
> loglevel are sometimes added via %s (for example, in /dev/kmsg). So
> rather than a NULL buffer, I would use a small buffer on the stack
> (large enough to store loglevel/cont information). This way we can use
> vscnprintf() to get the exact size _and_ printk_get_level() will see
> enough of the formatted string to parse what it needs.

OK. I guess this should work except for the cases when we want to
printk that we are running out of stack :)

More seriously, tho, sometimes messages come with dictionaries of
key/value pairs. I don't think we impose any strict limits on the
number of key/value pair or on the overall size of the dictionary
each record can have (up to a single PAGE, I'd guess. I really need
to check printk code). Finding a sufficiently large buffer size
might be a bit of a task.

> > I'm asking this because, well, if the most common usage
> > pattern (printk->prb_reserve) will always reserve fixed
> > size records (aka data blocks), then you _probably_ (??)
> > can drop the 'variable size records' requirement from prb
> > design and start looking at records (aka data blocks) as
> > fixed sized chunks of bytes, which are always located at
> > fixed offsets.
>
> The average printk message size is well under 128 bytes.

Do you also count in dictionary of properties (key/value pairs) which
records can carry?

For printks from core kernel 128 bytes would be a good estimation,
for dev_printk() and so on - I'm not exactly sure.

cat /dev/kmsg

This one, for instance, is a single logbuf record

6,560,2470340,-;hid-generic 0003:093A:2510.0001: input,hidraw0: USB HID v1.11 Mouse [PixArt USB Optical Mouse] on usb-0000:00:14.0-3/input0
 SUBSYSTEM=hid
 DEVICE=+hid:0003:093A:2510.0001

I suspect that it's larger than 128 bytes.

> It would be quite wasteful to always reserve 1K blocks.

Agreed.

	-ss