[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160329091439.GC12993@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:14:39 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v8 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
On Fri 25-03-16 00:43:22, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> @@ -1655,6 +1670,14 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
> raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> logbuf_cpu = this_cpu;
>
> + /*
> + * Set printing kthread sleep condition early, under the
> + * logbuf_lock, so it (if RUNNING) will go to console_lock()
> + * and spin on logbuf_lock.
> + */
> + if (!in_panic && printk_kthread && !need_flush_console)
> + need_flush_console = true;
> +
> if (unlikely(recursion_bug)) {
> static const char recursion_msg[] =
> "BUG: recent printk recursion!";
I like the cleaned up need_flush_console handling! Just a suggestion: It
may be more logical to handle need_flush_console setting under logbuf_lock
but after we actually store the message in the buffer, not before. Doesn't
matter for correctness now but may be more future-proof.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists