[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190906195359.GB69785@tigerII.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 04:53:59 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
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>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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 (09/06/19 16:01), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 2. The simple approach works only with lockless consoles. We need
> > something else for the rest at least for NMI. Simle offloading
> > to a kthread has been blocked for years. People wanted the
> > trylock-and-flush-immediately approach.
>
> Have an irq_work to wake up a kthread that will print to shit consoles.
Do we need sched dependency? We can print a batch of pending
logbuf messages and queue another irw_work if there are more
pending messages, right?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists