Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:33:09 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCHv3 2/5] printk: introduce printing kernel thread |
| |
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:42:24 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote:
> I apply a very simple litmus test. if the answer to the question > "so we leave console_unlock() and there are pending messages, > who and when is going to flush the remaining messages?" is > "something sometime in the future" then it's a no-no.
I totally agree with this, but...
> > "something sometime in the future" is equal to "no one". > > we must stay and continue printing. because it gives the right > answer - "current process and right now. until someone else > (+printk_kthread) takes over".
Would it be acceptable to have a user knob that allows for it not to happen? That is, let the user of the kernel decide if they care about critical prints or not? If a knob says, "only print X, then offload" would that be allowed. Of course the default would be "only print ALL OF IT" to keep the current behavior.
A lot of times the console isn't recorded to debug hard lock ups. I know most desktops running a GUI do not. When ever my workstation locks up, and it has no serial, I don't get to see the dmesg at all. In this situation, I don't care if the prints are offloaded or not.
-- Steve
| |