[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:52:36 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
efault@....de, npiggin@...nel.dk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
frank.rowand@...sony.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMI
watchdog messages
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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.
[ It would also open up the way to possibly make printk() NMI entry
safe - currently we lock up if we printk in an NMI or #MC context
that happens to nest inside a printk(). ]
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists