[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50C63346.8000802@am.sony.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:08:54 -0800
From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
To: "paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"dipankar@...ibm.com" <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/2][RFC] let RCU stall messages escape with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
On 12/10/12 06:29, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:52:21PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> The printk()s in RCU stall warnings do not get flushed to the console
>> on ARM. Add the oops_in_progress flag back into the special trylock case in
>> console_trylock_for_printk(), and set the flag using "bust_spinlocks(1)".
>> This allows the printk() output to be flushed to the console.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
>
> Is bust_spinlocks(1) appropriate for all architectures, or should this
> be conditioned on architectures that need oops_in_progress to be set?
>
> Thanx, Paul
Good question. I don't know if the architectures that do not set
oops_in_progress do not need it, or if they just overlooked it.
I'll have to look a little bit deeper.
-Frank
--
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