[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160307144051.GB835@swordfish>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 23:40:51 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.com, pmladek@...e.com,
tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
On (03/07/16 11:52), Jan Kara wrote:
[..]
> So for UP systems, we should by default disable async printing anyway I
> suppose. It is just a pointless overhead. So please just make printk_sync
> default to true if !CONFIG_SMP.
ok, thanks.
> When IRQs are disabled, you're right we will have a change in behavior. I
> don't see an easy way of avoiding delaying of printk until IRQs get
> enabled. I don't want to queue work directly because that creates
> possibility for lock recursion in queue_work(). And playing some tricks
> with irq_works isn't easy either - you cannot actually rely on any other
> CPU doing anything (even a timer tick) because of NOHZ.
yes. I thought about some sort of PRINTK_IPI on smp, and queue work from
PRINTK_IPI. which is a bit insane.
> So if this will be a problem in practice, using a kthread will probably be
> the easiest solution.
probably kthread is the way to go then. Tetsuo's bad experience with
workqueues also sounds a bit alarming.
I'll post a new patch soon.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists