[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150811181608.GA29819@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:16:08 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, pmladek@...e.cz,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, hch@....de,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: rebalance printk
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 07:23:01PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> From: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@...el.com>
>
> printk can be called in any context, It's very useful to output debug
> info.
>
> But it might cause very bad issues on some special cases. For example,
> some driver hit errors, and it dumps many messages like reg values, etc.
>
> Sometimes, printk is called when irqs disabled. This is OKay if there is
> a few messages. But What would happen if many messages outputted by other
> drivers at same time.
>
> Here is the scenario.
> CPUA CPUB
> local_irq_save(flags);
> printk()
> while(..) { --> console_unlock
> printk(...);
> //hundreds or thousands loops
> } //all messages flushed out to consoles
> local_irq_restore(flags);
>
Where are you seeing this type of scenario "in the wild"? Or is this
just a "debug/bringup hardware" issue? We shouldn't be ever stuck in a
printk that prints hundreds or thousands of loops, if so, we need to fix
the kernel code that does that, as we do have control over this.
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