lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: is printk() safe within a timekeeper_seq write section?
On 03/12/2014 02:21 AM, Jiri Bohac wrote:
> 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.

So I started looking into deferring the printk with a small local
buffer, but I suddenly realized there are all these WARN_ON's around
which would likely have the same problem, no?

So I'm starting to doubt we can safely get away with a timekeeping
specific hack to defer the printk. :(

thanks
-john






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-28 02:01    [W:0.379 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site