[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160714215721.GD3057@ubuntu>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 14:57:21 -0700
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
vlevenetz@...sol.com,
Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@...aro.org>,
Alex Elder <alex.elder@...aro.org>, johan@...nel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [Query] Preemption (hogging) of the work handler
On 14-07-16, 10:32, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> it wouldn't really, this silly question was not directly related to the
> deadlock we are discussing here but to Viresh's argument that later stages
> of suspending/hibernation seem to printk many messages in sync mode. so I
> thought that there might be a small benefit in suspending consoles later,
> as far as I understand, Viresh has `no_console_suspend' anyway. other
That option is enabled only for testing though :)
> than that, I tend to stick to the approach of switching to sync mode from
> suspend_console().
I actually need to test it out as well :)
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists