Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:56:39 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] printk: add halt_delay parameter for printk delay in halt phase | From | Dave Young <> |
| |
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > * Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> > >> > * Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Add a halt_delay module parameter in printk.c used to read the >> >> printk messages in halt/poweroff/restart phase, delay each printk >> >> messages by halt_delay milliseconds. It is useful for debugging if >> >> there's no other way to dump kernel messages that time. >> >> >> >> The halt_delay max value is 65535, default value is 0, change it >> >> by: >> >> >> >> echo xxx > /sys/module/printk/parameters/halt_delay >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> >> >> --- >> >> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 5 +++++ >> >> kernel/printk.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >> >> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/printk.c 2009-06-08 13:55:35.000000000 +0800 >> >> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/printk.c 2009-06-08 13:56:23.000000000 +0800 >> >> @@ -250,6 +250,22 @@ static inline void boot_delay_msec(void) >> >> } >> >> #endif >> >> >> >> +/* msecs delay after each halt/poweroff/restart phase printk, >> >> + unsigned short is enough for delay in milliseconds */ >> >> +static unsigned short halt_delay; >> >> + >> >> +static inline void halt_delay_msec(void) >> >> +{ >> >> + if (unlikely(halt_delay == 0 || !(system_state == SYSTEM_HALT >> >> + || system_state == SYSTEM_POWER_OFF >> >> + || system_state == SYSTEM_RESTART))) >> >> + return; >> > >> > This is a tiny bit ugly (and goes into the vprintf path) but i >> > can see no other way either - a system_state > SYSTEM_RUNNING >> > check would needlessly include the suspend-to-disk state (which >> > we dont want to include here). >> >> Can we move suspend-to-disk before halt state? > > Yes, we could do that - if all system_state uses are checked for > side-effects - in particular comparisons. We have a few places that > do 'if (system_state > SYSTEM_RUNNING)' - to designate 'shutdown > state'. Now, if we have any use of > SYSTEM_SHUTDOWN that might > break from such a reordering. > > I wouldnt expect such usage really, but it has to be checked. That > would make this patch quite a bit cleaner. > > Mind sending a followup delta patch with this cleanup?
I'm glad to check the system_state usage, then write a followup patch.
> > Ingo >
-- Regards dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |