[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161025044452.GA411@swordfish>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:44:52 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux.git: printk() problem
On (10/24/16 21:15), Linus Torvalds wrote:
[..]
> No. Most cont lines never hit the delay, because when the line is
> completed, it is flushed (and then printed synchronously, assuming it
> can get the console lock).
>
> So the timeout only ever comes into effect if the line isn't completed
> in time at all. Which is actually very rare, and never happens for the
> "let's print things out in multiple chinks because we're using a
> loop".
>
> Similarly, if a new printk() happens due to interleaving, the previous
> buffered line is always flushed first, so buffering never causes
> out-of-order behavior.
thanks. the patch works fine on my x86 box.
> Basically, the only time the timer actually does anything is if
> something just does a printk() without a newline, and no other
> printouts happen for the next 0.1s.
ok. perhaps, like slow serial console. will test on arm board later.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists