Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:21:25 +0100 | From | Jiri Bohac <> | Subject | Re: is printk() safe within a timekeeper_seq write section? |
| |
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 02:54:13PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > Ok, so a generic solution is probably not going to be worth it then. My > thought was that since we do a very limited amount of informational > printks in the timekeeping code, we can be fairly safe delaying the > print-out until we drop the locks. > > For timekeeping, its really 4 call sites: > * invalid inject_sleep_time deltas > * > 11% clocksource freq adjustments > * insert leap second > * delete leap second
I believe these last two were made safe by commit ca4523cd (timekeeping: Shorten seq_count region).
write_seqcount_begin(&timekeeper_seq) is now done after the accumulate_nsecs_to_secs(tk) from where the printks are called.
Regards,
-- Jiri Bohac <jbohac@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, SUSE CZ
| |