[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111214094643.GA8115@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:46:43 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: printk() vs tty_io
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 07:59 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > btw., would be nice to also somehow realeasify those debug
> > hacks to preserve them for eternity - doing all lockdep
> > output as earlyprintk while keeping printks working is a
> > great way to debug printk() itself.
> >
> > Those printk lockups also took a *lot* of time for me to
> > bisect.
>
> Yeah, they're horrible.. took me long enough to reproduce, and
> even now I know how its not easy.
>
> Anyway, I just posted the two patches that make lockdep do
> early_printk(), they're not too horrid. [...]
Given how crutial lockdep is to analyzing lockups, i think this
decoupling from printk() innards is a good idea in general.
[ It also rhymes well with the general principles of lockdep, to
create all of its infrastructure from scratch, to be able to
use it everywhere. ]
The small lprintk() ugliness we can live with i think.
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