[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171109102613.hp6waybyxbkb3crz@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:26:13 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...e.de, pmladek@...e.com,
sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, vbabka@...e.cz, peterz@...radead.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, rostedt@...e.goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to
loadbalance console writes
On Thu 09-11-17 19:22:58, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi,
> > assuming that this passes warn stall torturing by Tetsuo, do you think
> > we can drop http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1509017339-4802-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
> > from the mmotm tree?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> The rule that "do not try to printk() faster than the kernel can write to
> consoles" will remain no matter how printk() changes. Unless asynchronous
> approach like https://lwn.net/Articles/723447/ is used, I think we can't
> obtain useful information.
Does that mean that the patch doesn't pass your test?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists