[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171214125506.52a7e5fa@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:55:06 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv6 00/12] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:25:51 -0800
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 3. Soft-lockups are still theoretically possible with Steven's
> > approach.
> >
> > But it seems to be quite efficient in many real life scenarios,
> > including Tetsuo's stress testing. Or am I wrong?
>
> AFAICS, Steven's approach doesn't fix the livelock that we see quite
> often in the fleet where we don't have a safe context to keep flushing
> messages. This isn't theoretical at all. You simply don't have a
> safe context on the cpu to go to. I said I'd come back with a repro
> case but haven't had a chance to yet. I'll try to do it before the
> end of the year, but idk this is pretty obvious.
Yes! Please create a reproducer, because I still don't believe there is
one. And it's all hand waving until there's an actual report that we can
lock up the system with my approach.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists