[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180115070821.40f044d6@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:08:21 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
rostedt@...e.goodmis.org, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:55:37 +0100
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> > I'm not fixing console_unlock(), I'm fixing printk(). BTW, all my
> > kernels are CONFIG_PREEMPT (I'm a RT guy), my mind thinks more about
> > PREEMPT kernels than !PREEMPT ones.
>
> I would say that the patch improves also console_unlock() but only in
> non-preemttive context.
>
> By other words, it makes console_unlock() finite in preemptible context
> (limited by buffer size). It might still be unlimited in
> non-preemtible context.
Since I'm worried most about printk(), I would argue to make printk
console unlock always non-preempt.
preempt_disable();
if (console_trylock_spinning())
console_unlock();
preempt_enable();
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists