[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307709714.3941.140.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:41:54 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de,
Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>,
PaulMundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] printk: Release console_sem after logbuf_lock
On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 14:34 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > thinking that that would have my printk stmts appear on both the
> > fbcon as well as the serial line. But they fail to appear on the
> > latency tracer (current max was 165us waking an idle cpu).
>
> Have you removed this bit:
>
> spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> stop_critical_timings(); /* don't trace print latency */
> call_console_drivers(_con_start, _log_end);
> start_critical_timings();
> local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> which hides the latencies from the latency tracer?
it shouldn't those flags come from spin_lock_irqsave(), which already
has IRQs disabled, so the restore shouldn't re-enable them.
Hmm,. that might actually already be true for mainline too, yeah, looks
like we call vprintk()->console_unlock() with IRQs-disabled.
Hohumm..
--
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