[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071025231237.GT19691@waste.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:12:38 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...oo.com>
Subject: Re: IRQ off latency of printk is very high
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 03:52:28PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > It might help to read this thread I posted on LKML in January 2006
> > explaining the problem, which led to some discussion about the issue.
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/3/48
>
> This is very helpful. Jon Smirl's answer seems to give the
> rationale for supporting printk output in interrupt context.
> I'm not sure, however, if extending the interrupt off period
> to cover the console output is required. It didn't until
> Ingo changed it in 2.6.17.
Hmm, I see this at the beginning of the post-BK era (2.6.12-rc2):
spin_lock_irqsave(&logbuf_lock, flags);
...
spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
call_console_drivers(_con_start, _log_end);
local_irq_restore(flags);
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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