[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140916173328.6306a5c2@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:33:28 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: git rid of [sched_delayed] message for
printk_deferred
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:22:50 +0200
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > For the most part it's a blocking write. Yeah, if another CPU is
> > writing, it wont be a blocking write, but it usually is, I know I
> > depend on it (when I'm debugging, I usually don't have contention
> > between CPUs). The important part is that they are done in order. A
> > delayed print, wont be in order with other printks. That is still a
> > crucial difference.
> printk_deffered() will be in order with other printks after your commit
> 458df9fd4815b47809875d57f42e16401674b621. Just printing to console itself
> will be delayed to the next timer interrupt. Or am I missing something?
Hehe, you're right. I blame the meds for forgetting this.
Yeah, my update will put the data in order. Thus I guess I agree with
your assessment. We probably don't need the "sched_delayed" anymore.
OK, you convinced me, but I still like to hear Peter's view on this
before we commit it.
For Markus's patch:
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
-- Steve
--
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