[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909051736410.1902@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:38:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/9] printk: new ringbuffer implementation
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > The alternative lockless approach is still more complicated than
> > the serialized one. But I think that it is manageable thanks to
> > the simplified state tracking. And I might safe use some pain
> > in the long term.
>
> I've not looked at it yet, sorry. 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?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists