[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140627144323.GG23205@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:43:23 +0200
From: Petr Mládek <pmladek@...e.cz>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5 v2] printk: Add per_cpu printk func to allow
printk to be diverted
On Fri 2014-06-27 10:39:33, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:20:25 +0200
> Petr Mládek <pmladek@...e.cz> wrote:
>
>
> > > va_start(args, fmt);
> > > - r = vprintk_emit(0, -1, NULL, 0, fmt, args);
> > > + preempt_disable();
> >
> > I think that it is too late to disable the preemption here.
> > It has to be done by the printk() caller if it wants to be sure
> > that the requested function is used.
>
> That's only if the printk() caller cares. But it would be nice that we
> run the printk_func for the CPU that vprintk_func() is on, thus the
> preempt_disable() is required. (in -rt, this would turn into a
> migrate_disable()).
It makes sense. Thanks for explanation.
Best Regards,
Petr
> -- Steve
>
> >
> > > + vprintk_func = this_cpu_read(printk_func);
> > > + r = vprintk_func(fmt, args);
> > > + preempt_enable();
> > > va_end(args);
> > >
> > > return r;
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr
>
--
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