[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160902151549.GG4554@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:15:49 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, vlevenetz@...sol.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] printk: Make printk() completely async
On Fri 2016-09-02 16:58:08, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (09/01/16 10:58), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2016-08-31 21:52:24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > a console_unlock() doing
> > > wake_up_process(printk_kthread) would make it better.
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean by this.
>
> I meant that this thing
>
> local_irq_save() // or preempt_disable()
> ...
> if (console_trylock())
> console_unlock();
> ...
> local_irq_restore() // or preempt_enable()
I see.
> can easily lockup the system if console_trylock() was successful and there
> are enough messages to print. printk_kthread can't help, because here we
> basically enforce the `old' behavior. we have async printk, but not async
> console output. tweaking console_unlock() to offload the actual printing loop
> to printk_kthread would make the entire console output async:
>
> static void console_sync_flush_and_unlock(void)
> {
> for (;;) {
> ...
> call_console_drivers();
> ...
> }
> }
>
> void console_unlock(void)
> {
> if (!MOTORMOUTH && can_printk_async()) {
> up();
> wake_up_process(printk_kthread);
> return;
> }
> console_sync_flush_and_unlock();
> }
Something like this would make sense. But I would do it in a separate
patch(set). We need to go through all console_unlock() callers and
make sure that they are fine with the potential async behavior.
I would not complicate the async printk patchset by this.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists