[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170407154047.GB384@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 00:40:47 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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
On (04/07/17 17:23), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[..]
> > we are looking at different typical setups :) serial console being 45
> > seconds behind logbuf does not surprise me anymore.
>
> That does sound like you're doing something wrong and should look at
> reducing printk() more than anything else.
yeah, 45sec is an extreme case that simply doesn't surprise me anymore ;)
that's not a normal/usual delay, of course, we are not this mad. on average
it's much better and may be not so far 2 seconds after all. a massive OOM
report, of course, appends logbuf messages at a much higher rate than UART
serial console can swallow, so the delay is getting larger, expectedly.
and, no, I don't add any printk-s, I'm looking at the lockup reports
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists