[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:36:45 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
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 2/8] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
On (04/04/17 11:01), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > +static atomic_t printk_emergency __read_mostly;
> > +/*
> > + * Disable printk_kthread permanently. Unlike `oops_in_progress'
> > + * it doesn't go back to 0.
> > + */
>
> The comment is not valid once we allow to modify the variable using
> the sysfs knob.
it's updated in that patch (sysfs knob introduction).
[..]
> > @@ -2182,6 +2253,7 @@ void console_unlock(void)
> > console_may_schedule = 0;
> >
> > again:
> > + clear_bit(PRINTK_PENDING_OUTPUT, &printk_pending);
>
> This will not help if new messages appear during
> call_console_drivers().
you are right. wouldn't do much harm (an extra console_unlock() from
printk_kthread in the worst case), but agree.
I added it there because of that "!can_use_console()" branch. not that
I expect printk_kthread being executed on !online CPU, but we might have
no callable consoles.
probably should have that clear_bit() before and after the loop.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists