On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:21:45PM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
> On Wed 2014-06-18 12:59:26, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:31:02AM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
> > > On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > I am happy with this solution. And I agree that it
On Wed 2014-06-18 12:59:26, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:31:02AM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
> > On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > I am happy with this solution. And I agree that it is better to split
> > log_buf_len_align() in a separate patch as you
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:31:02AM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
> On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> I am happy with this solution. And I agree that it is better to split
> log_buf_len_align() in a separate patch as you suggested in the other
> mail.
OK just to be on safe side I
On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 04:52:01PM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
> > On Mon 2014-06-16 17:37:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> > > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > > index
On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 04:52:01PM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
On Mon 2014-06-16 17:37:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:31:02AM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I am happy with this solution. And I agree that it is better to split
log_buf_len_align() in a separate patch as you suggested in the other
mail.
OK just to be on safe side I
On Wed 2014-06-18 12:59:26, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:31:02AM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I am happy with this solution. And I agree that it is better to split
log_buf_len_align() in a separate patch as you
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:21:45PM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
On Wed 2014-06-18 12:59:26, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:31:02AM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
I am happy with this solution. And I agree that it is better
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> @@ -828,29 +829,68 @@ void log_buf_kexec_setup(void)
> /* requested log_buf_len from kernel cmdline */
> static unsigned long __initdata new_log_buf_len;
>
> -/* save requested log_buf_len since it's too early to process it */
>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 04:52:01PM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
> On Mon 2014-06-16 17:37:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > index ea2d5f6..54632a0c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > +++
On Tue 2014-06-17 16:52:00, Petr Mládek wrote:
> What about replacing the above changes in kernel/printk/printk.c with
> the following ones:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index ea2d5f6962ed..e00a9600f5fa 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++
On Tue 2014-06-17 16:52:00, Petr Mládek wrote:
> On Mon 2014-06-16 17:37:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> >
> > The default size of the ring buffer is too small for machines
> > with a large amount of CPUs under heavy load. What ends up
> > happening when debugging is
On Mon 2014-06-16 17:37:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>
> The default size of the ring buffer is too small for machines
> with a large amount of CPUs under heavy load. What ends up
> happening when debugging is the ring buffer overlaps and chews
> up old messages
On Mon 2014-06-16 17:37:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
The default size of the ring buffer is too small for machines
with a large amount of CPUs under heavy load. What ends up
happening when debugging is the ring buffer overlaps and chews
up old
On Tue 2014-06-17 16:52:00, Petr Mládek wrote:
On Mon 2014-06-16 17:37:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
The default size of the ring buffer is too small for machines
with a large amount of CPUs under heavy load. What ends up
happening when debugging
On Tue 2014-06-17 16:52:00, Petr Mládek wrote:
What about replacing the above changes in kernel/printk/printk.c with
the following ones:
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index ea2d5f6962ed..e00a9600f5fa 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 04:52:01PM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
On Mon 2014-06-16 17:37:44, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index ea2d5f6..54632a0c 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com wrote:
@@ -828,29 +829,68 @@ void log_buf_kexec_setup(void)
/* requested log_buf_len from kernel cmdline */
static unsigned long __initdata new_log_buf_len;
-/* save requested log_buf_len since it's too early to process it
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
The default size of the ring buffer is too small for machines
with a large amount of CPUs under heavy load. What ends up
happening when debugging is the ring buffer overlaps and chews
up old messages making debugging impossible unless the size is
passed as a kernel
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
The default size of the ring buffer is too small for machines
with a large amount of CPUs under heavy load. What ends up
happening when debugging is the ring buffer overlaps and chews
up old messages making debugging impossible unless the size is
passed as
20 matches
Mail list logo
