[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ef0u4fg5.fsf@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 23:10:34 +0200
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"contact\@linuxplumbersconf.org" <contact@...uxplumbersconf.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation
On 2019-09-05, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>>> But per the above argument of needing the CPU serialization
>>> _anyway_, I don't see a compelling reason not to use it.
>>>
>>> It is simple, it works. Let's use it.
>>>
>>> If you really fancy a multi-writer buffer, you can always switch to
>>> one later, if you can convince someone it actually brings benefits
>>> and not just head-aches.
>>
>> Can we please grab one of the TBD slots at kernel summit next week,
>> sit down in a room and hash that out?
>>
>
> We should definitely be able to find a room that will be available
> next week.
FWIW, on Monday at 12:45 I am giving a talk[0] on the printk
rework. I'll be dedicating a few slides to presenting the lockless
multi-writer design, but will also talk about the serialized CPU
approach from RFCv1.
John Ogness
[0] https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/event/4/contributions/290/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists