[PATCH v2 3/4] printk: nbcon: move printk_delay to console emiting code

[Petr Mladek]

On Tue 2026-07-07 14:54:11, Benedikt Spranger wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 18:05:06 +0100
> Andrew Murray <amurray at thegoodpenguin.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> > On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 15:56, Benedikt Spranger
> > <b.spranger at linutronix.de> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:35:59 +0100
> > > Andrew Murray <amurray at thegoodpenguin.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > The printk_delay and boot_delay features are helpful for debugging
> > > > as kernel output can be slowed down during boot allowing messages
> > > > to be seen before scrolling off the screen, or to correlate timing
> > > > between some physical event and console output.
> > > By now, it slows down the boot process, which is the handy part of
> > > that feature.
> > >
> > > > However, since the introduction of nbcon and the legacy printer
> > > > thread for PREEMPT_RT kernels, printk records are now emited to
> > > > the console asynchronously to the caller of printk. Thus, any
> > > > printk delay added by boot_delay/printk_delay continues to slow
> > > > down the calling process but may not have any impact to the rate
> > > > in which records are emited to the console.
> > > Using this feature to slow down the boot/suspend/resume process and
> > > implicit make printk() happen, is the usefull part of that feature.
> > > Imagine this sequence (which hit me on suspend/resume on i.MX after
> > > shutting down all secondary CPUs)
> > >
> > >   printk("A");
> > >   (do some stuff)
> > >   printk("B");
> > >   read from peripheral --> system got stuck here since peripheral
> > > was not clocked or powered or both any more.
> > >
> > > The delay (and later on a ugly patch to make printk() synchrounous)
> > > helped to locate where the failed access happend. JTAG did not help,
> > > since the CPU got stuck --> no JTAG communication to that CPU.

First, it is great to know that people are actually using the
boot_delay and printk_delay features.

> > I understand the use-case, you sprinkle printk's so you can find the
> > point where a read to a register causes the CPU to stop. This requires
> > that the printk happens before the read, and the output from the
> > printk is printed before the read.
> Enabling existing debug features in the kernel was a good start.
> 
> > > With your purposed change you *may* see "A", but never "B".
> > > Quite challenging... 
> > At present you may see 'A' and you may see 'B'.
> That's correct. 
> 
> > Prior to the changes in this patchset, and assuming an nbcon console
> iMX swtched over to nbcon, so your assumption is correct.
> 
> > (which may not be your usecase, but is perhaps representative of
> > future use-cases), then the printk delay will always happen within the
> > call to printk (and always before emitting).
> Which is quite good, but can be better. (See the missing sync feature
> mentioned in Johns reply)
> 
> > However, depending on the context, that printk call may return (and
> > proceed to your CPU halting register read), before the message is
> > actually emitted to the console. I.e. it's a race.
> I am aware of that.
> 
> > This series moves the delay to the emit side, as well as moving the
> > delay after the emit. Thus the calling code may make progress more
> > quickly, but depending on the context, it may also flush/emit before
> > returning from printk.
> Unfortunately it makes things worse.
> 
> > In my view, with or without this series, there are no guarantees that
> > you will see 'A' and 'B'. And in any case, achieving the functionality
> > for debugging required you to modify the printk anyway.
> The "sync" feature is on the TODO list as John mentioned. 
> 
> > > So please leave the delay on the calling side - it is helpfull
> > > there.
> > 
> > If you want to ensure printk is synchronous, perhaps you could call
> > nbcon_cpu_emergency_enter() prior to your printk, or perhaps there are
> > already printk wrappers that do somthing similar whilst debugging?
> As said I did an ugly hack and forced printk() to be synchronous.
> 
> > Would that provide a more reliable way to guarantee output?
> It does.

To summarize this discussion:

  + Benedikt would prefer to add the synchronous mode before
    moving the delay from the printk() caller to the console emit
    code path.

  + The delay in the printk() caller code path did not guarantee
    the output but it increased the chance to see it.

  + The synchronous mode will be even more reliable than the delay
    in printk() caller path.

Please, let me know if I did not get it right,

John, did you have any plan how to add the synchronous mode, please?
Does it look complicated?

I guess that we would somehow need to "mis-use" the emergency
priority and force it everywhere by some global system setting.

Best Regards,
Petr