[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171104042408.GB539@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 13:24:08 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Subject: printk: Don't trap random context in
infinite log_buf flush
On (11/02/17 06:52), Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> When printk flushing isn't contended, whoever creates messages get to
> flush them, which is great in both fairness and keeping log delivery
> synchronous. However, when console drivers can't keep up with the
> rate of new messages, which happens a lot, who ends up with the
> flushing duty is determined by timing and everyone else's messages
> become asynchronous.
Hello Tejun,
thanks for the patch set. we are currently looking at another approach:
lkml.kernel.org/r/20171102134515.6eef16de@...dalf.local.home
would you be interested in taking a look?
there are some concerns, like a huge number of printk-s happening while
console_sem is locked. e.g. console_lock()/console_unlock() on one of the
CPUs, or console_lock(); printk(); ... printk(); console_unlock();
>
> the problem of "the last printk()", which will take
> over and do the flush.
>
> CPU0 CPU1 ~ CPU99
> console_lock();
> printk(); ... printk();
> console_unlock();
> IRQ on CPU2
> printk()
> // take over console_sem
> console_unlock()
>
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists