[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171228100708.GB892@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 19:07:08 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
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
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv6 00/12] printk: introduce printing kernel thread
On (12/28/17 15:48), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> and I'm actually thinking about returning back the old vprintk_emit()
> behavior
>
> vprintk_emit()
> {
> + preempt_disable();
> if (console_trylock())
> console_unlock();
> + preempt_enable();
> }
but am not going to.
it's outside of printk_kthread scope. and, besides, not every CPU which
is looping on console_unlock() came there via printk(). so by disabling
preemption in console_unlock() we cover more cases.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists