[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150529135045.09d87c7ab98bf26dec95c8b3@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:50:45 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wang Long <long.wanglong@...wei.com>,
peifeiyue@...wei.com, dzickus@...hat.com, morgan.wang@...wei.com,
sasha.levin@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] printk: Avoid deadlock in NMI + vprintk_emit()
cleanup
On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:46:23 +0200 Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz> wrote:
> The main source of deadlocks caused by printk() in NMI context has been
> solved by the commit a9edc88093287 ("x86/nmi: Perform a safe NMI stack
> trace on all CPUs").
>
> But there are still few warnings printed in the NMI code that could
> case a deadlock. For example, see the freeze discussed at
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/20/481
I'm not (yet) convinced that we want the entire patchset btw. Do we
really want to try to semi-support printk from NMI? With a rather
nasty set of hacks?
Why not just delete the offending printks?
--
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