[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9648a384-853c-942e-6a8d-80432d943aae@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 20:37:39 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Use line-buffered printk() for lockdep
messages.
On 2018/11/08 13:45, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> So, can we just do the following? /* a sketch */
>
> lockdep.c
> printk_safe_enter_irqsave(flags);
> lockdep_report();
> printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);
If buffer size were large enough to hold messages from out_of_memory(),
I would like to use it for out_of_memory() because delaying SIGKILL
due to waiting for printk() to complete is not good. Surely we can't
hold all messages because amount from dump_tasks() is unpredictable.
Maybe we can hold all messages from dump_header() except dump_tasks().
But isn't it essentially same with
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1493560477-3016-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
which Linus does not want?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists