[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170331150618.GC3452@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:06:18 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv2 4/8] pm: switch to printk.emergency mode in unsafe
places
On Wed 2017-03-29 18:25:07, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> It's not always possible/safe to wake_up() printk kernel
> thread. For example, late suspend/early resume may printk()
> while timekeeping is not initialized yet, so calling into the
> scheduler may result in recursive warnings.
>
> Another thing to notice is the fact PM at some point
> freezes user space and kernel threads: freeze_processes()
> and freeze_kernel_threads(), correspondingly. Thus we need
> printk() to operate in old mode there and attempt to
> immediately flush pending kernel message to the console.
>
> This patch adds printk_emergency_begin/on sections.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
It looks reasonable to me. Feel free to use:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Well, it still would be great if people more familiar
with this code look at it.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists