[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170215044907.GB1834@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:49:07 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in next with use printk_safe buffers in printk
On (02/14/17 19:29), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:56:45AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > that crossed my mind, but I kinda assumed that we do printk() from
> > under tk_core using sched fair, and rt_runtime_lock is from sched rt.
>
> That's all true; lockdep doesn't care :-) All it knows is that at some
> point those locks nest.
thanks.
I think I'll get more familiar with the lockdep splats in
coming months :) but it's good (well, so far) that now we
keep lockdep enabled in printk.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists