[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180123073143.GB489@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:31:43 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup
On (01/23/18 15:40), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>
> Why do we even use irq_work for printk_safe?
>
... perhaps because of
wq: pool->lock -> printk -> call_console_drivers -> printk -> vprintk_safe -> wq: pool->lock
Which is a "many things have gone wrong" type of scenario. Maybe we
can workaround it somehow, hm. Tejun, can we have lockless WQ? ;)
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists