[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0808111050160.29861@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
marcin.slusarz@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: robustify printk
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> $INSERT-ANY-OTHER-PRINTK-USE$
>
> The point was that printk may have been perfectly adequate for
> them with its existing buffer sizes and dynamic wake up frequency,
> and might not anymore with the timer wakeup change. Essentially
> it is making a widely used kernel facility more fragile.
I've measured several latencies in the kernel that would cause klogd to
take serveral jiffies to wake up. I highly doubt that adding one jiffy
will break anything. And if it did, then it would show a bug in their
system. If adding one jiffy causes lost data, then the system
administrators are relying on a utility (klogd) that can easily fail them
without these patches.
If we are making a highly fragile setup a bit more fragile, maybe it will
wake the IT guys up to change their setup.
-- 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