PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE in freebsd6

[pluknet]

2008/12/17 Paul B. Mahol <onemda at gmail.com>:
> On 12/17/08, pluknet <pluknet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/12/17 Paul B. Mahol <onemda at gmail.com>:
>>> On 12/17/08, pluknet <pluknet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2008/12/17 pluknet <pluknet at gmail.com>:
>>>>> 2008/12/16 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:23:28PM +0300, pluknet wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could the PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE option be safely merged into RELENG_6
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> merging a possible underlining infrastructure and breaking something
>>>>>>> else?
>>>>>>> I want to use it in my custom freebsd6 because I see "interspersed
>>>>>>> strings
>>>>>>> written from different CPUs at the same time":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> uuusseseerrvmrem: vlmivmeimtme :e mx:ceed eldi bly 2i89m68m (iihttt t
>>>>>>> pde) eaxtx cfcorke1 22e3e
>>>>>>> deded ebyd  by28 296898 68(h t(tpdh) att ftorkp1 22d3
>>>>>>> ) at fork1 223
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm talking about only merging kern/subr_prf.c 1.126, 1.128, 1.129.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did a backport of the option some time ago, see
>>>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/misc/releng_6_printf_bufr.3.patch
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.3 system panics (many page faults, one after another) early at boot
>>>>> without the option, and boots with it in the QEMU environment.
>>>>> Next step to test it on a real (and SMPable) hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now tested on a real 2xXeon 3.0 w/ HTT enabled w/ PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE
>>>> enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Received the following panic:
>>>
>>> And how big is PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE ?
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I set options PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=128
>>
>> And maybe it's not enough (?) because I stress-tested server triggering
>> to appear many kernel messages simultaneously.
>> I don't know coherence between buffer size and this panic though.
>
> How long such kernel messages are?

48 symbols plus length of a process name... it added 6 in my case,
i.e. 54 symbols totally.

-- 
wbr,
pluknet