Re: xl dmesg buffer too small for Xen 4.18?

[Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Roger,
> 
> On 19/09/2023 08:02, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 07:49:26PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> (+Roger and moving to xen-devel)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 18/09/2023 19:17, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2023 9:00 AM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I tested Xen 4.18~rc0 on Alma Linux 9 and my first tests indicate it 
>>>>> works fine for starting the guests I manage but I notice that immediately 
>>>>> after boot and with only dom0 running on the system, I get:
>>>>>
>>>>> [user@Malmalinux ~]$ sudo xl dmesg
>>>>> 00bee72000-00000bee72fff type=7 attr=000000000000000f
>>>>> (XEN)  00000bee73000-00000bef49fff type=4 attr=000000000000000f
>>>>> (XEN)  00000bef4a000-00000bef4bfff type=7 attr=000000000000000f
>>>>> (XEN)  00000bef4c000-00000befbafff type=4 attr=000000000000000f
>>>>> (XEN)  00000befbb000-00000befbbfff type=7 attr=000000000000000f
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have noticed the buffer fills up quickly on earlier Xen versions, but 
>>>>> never have I seen it fill up during boot and with only dom0 running.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can increasing the buffer fix this? How would one do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see the setting is the command line option conring_size:
>>>>
>>>> https://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/xen-command-line.html#conring_size
>>>>
>>>> The default is 16k, I tried 48k and that was big enough to capture all the 
>>>> messages at boot for 4.18 rc0. This is probably not an issue if the 
>>>> release candidate is being more verbose than the actual release will be. 
>>>> But if the release is still this verbose, maybe the default of 16k should 
>>>> be increased.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report. This remind me the series [1] from Roger which tries
>>> to increase the default size to 32K. @Roger, I am wondering if we should
>>> revive it?
>> 
>> I think the relevant patch (2/2) will still apply as-is, it's just a
>> Kconfig one line change.  I'm however thinking it might be better to
>> bump it even further, to 128K.  From a system point of view it's still
>> a very small amount of memory.
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion about 128K vs 32K.

I am sure 32k will be big enough on my system, and based on Jan's comment
about release builds being less verbose, the current default of 16k may
still work on my system once the release is out. I am willing to defer to
whatever the developers decide according to the ordinary process for deciding
such questions.

> 
>> 
>> I'm happy to repost with an increased buffer size, but only if there's
>> someone willing to Ack it, otherwise it's not worth spending time on
>> it.
> 
> Sorry that patch fell through the cracks. I would be happy to ack the patch.
> 
> Cheers,
>