[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120615231318.GD8205@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:13:18 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"kay.sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Add printk_flush() to force buffered text to
console
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:04:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:22:33PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > I actually would like to make these more compact. As all my test box
> > > > consoles go through serial ports, just booting through this takes more
> > > > time the the compile itself.
> > >
> > > The tests took 23 seconds boot time on one kernel:
> > >
> > > [ 0.152934] Testing tracer nop: PASSED
> > > ...1577 lines total...
> > > [ 23.206550] Testing kprobe tracing: OK
> > >
> > > And 135 seconds in another bloated kernel:
> > >
> > > [ 115.396441] Testing event 9p_client_req: OK
> > > ...2545 lines total...
> > > [ 240.268783] Testing kprobe tracing: OK
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate if the boot time can be reduced. Because I'm doing
> > > kernel boot tests for *every single* commits.
> > >
> > > It may look insane amount of work, but it's still manageable: with 10
> > > kvm instances each take 1 minute to boot test a kernel, I can boot
> > > test 60*24*10=14400 kernels in one day. That's a rather big number.
> > > That allows me to run more cpu/vm/io stress tests for each kernel :-)
> >
> > Do you really want to enable those tests for your test
> > kernels? Can they fail if we mess up other parts of the
> > kernel, or do they only test the tracing portions?
>
> These printk's are useful, are used for a specific (albeit
> limited) purpose and were and continue to be useful in that
> role.
>
> The changes Steve bisected to broke this use of printk().
And note, fixed others :)
> Please apply Steve's fix, fix it yourself or revert the changes that
> regressed printk().
I thought Steve's patch was just a RFC thing, is it really something
that everyone wants to see applied?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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