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
From
Date
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 18:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, and we already do it in some other circumstances.

We do?

> Can you see
> any problem with that? klogd is an utter slowpath anyway.

but console_sem isn't klogd. We delay klogd and that's perfectly fine,
but afaict we don't delay console_sem.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-06 18:15    [W:0.830 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site