lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMI watchdog messages
FromPeter Zijlstra <>
DateMon, 06 Jun 2011 18:00:39 +0200
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 17:52 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > Needs more staring at, preferably by someone who actually
> > understands that horrid mess :/ Also, this all still doesn't make
> > printk() work reliably while holding rq->lock.
>
> So, what about my suggestion to just *remove* the wakeup from there
> and use the deferred wakeup mechanism that klogd uses.
>
> That would make printk() *visibly* more robust in practice.

That's currently done from the jiffy tick, do you want to effectively
delay releasing the console_sem for the better part of a jiffy?

> [ It would also open up the way to possibly make printk() NMI entry
> safe - currently we lock up if we printk in an NMI or #MC context
> that happens to nest inside a printk(). ]

Well, for that to happen you also need to deal with logbuf_lock nesting.
Personally I think using printk() from NMI context is quite beyond sane.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-06 18:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2010