[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170406173306.GD10363@amd>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 19:33:06 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [printk] fbc14616f4:
BUG:kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage
Hi!
> This patch set gives up part of the printk() reliability for bounded
> latency (at least unless we detect we are really in trouble) which is IMHO
> a good trade-off for lots of users (and others can just turn this feature
> off).
If they can ever realize they were bitten by this feature.
Can we go for different tradeoff?
In console_unlock(), if you detect too much work, print "Too many
messages to print, %d bytes delayed" and wake up kernel thread.
You still get the latency, and people bitten by this feature will at
least get fair warning.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists