[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 19:55:13 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, pmladek@...e.cz,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove separate printk_sched buffers and use
printk buf instead
On Mon, 05 May 2014 16:33:51 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 19:18 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > To prevent deadlocks with doing a printk inside the scheduler,
> > printk_sched() was created. The issue is that printk has a console_sem
> > that it can grab and release. The release does a wake up if there's a
> > task pending on the sem, and this wake up grabs the rq locks that is
> > held in the scheduler. This leads to a possible deadlock if the wake up
> > uses the same rq as the one with the rq lock held already.
> []
> > kernel/printk/printk.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> []
> > @@ -2440,18 +2470,20 @@
> > #define PRINTK_BUF_SIZE 512
>
> Wouldn't this define be unused and shouldn't it be deleted too?
>
I guess it would.
-- Steve
--
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