[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170331153757.GA29537@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:37:58 +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 5/8] sysrq: switch to printk.emergency mode in
unsafe places
On Wed 2017-03-29 18:25:08, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> It's not always possible/safe to wake_up() printk kernel
> thread from sysrq (theoretically). Thus we better switch
> printk() to emergency mode in some of the sysrq handlers,
> which allows us to immediately flush pending kernel message
> to the console.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
> Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
It looks like a decent selection. It is pity that some of
them might produce rather long output and theoretically
cause a softlookup. But I do not know about a better solution
at the moment. In each case, it will not be worse than before
this patchset.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists